[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2019 19:16:21 +0200
From: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: Alessio Balsini <balsini@...roid.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
VincentGuittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/6] sched/core: uclamp: Propagate parent clamps
On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 04:08:10PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com> wrote:
> Well, if I've got correctly your comment in the previous message, I
> would say that at this stage we don't need RCU looks at all.
Agreed.
> Reason being that cpu_util_update_eff() gets called only from
> cpu_uclamp_write() which is from an ongoing write operation on a cgroup
> attribute and thus granted to be available.
>
> We will eventually need to move the RCU look only down the stack when
> uclamp_update_active_tasks() gets called to update the RUNNABLE tasks on
> a RQ... or perhaps we don't need them since we already get the
> task_rq_lock() for each task we visit.
Unless you remove css_for_each_descendant_pre() in
cpu_util_update_eff(), the rcu_read_lock() cannot go below it.
(You'd be RCU-accessing other csses that aren't pinned in the write.)
Michal
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists