[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191124222051.kbb62phfsln5ixg4@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 22:20:52 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net,
qperret@...gle.com, morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] sched/fair: Consider uclamp for "task fits capacity"
checks
On 11/20/19 17:55, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> +static inline
> +unsigned long uclamp_task_util(struct task_struct *p, unsigned long util)
> +{
> + return clamp(util,
> + (unsigned long)uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MIN),
> + (unsigned long)uclamp_eff_value(p, UCLAMP_MAX));
> +}
uclamp_eff_value() will check if a task belongs to a cgroup, and if it does
apply its uclamp. The funny thing about the cgroup settings is that they can
have a uclamp_max < uclamp_min. uclamp_util_with() does check for this
condition but this function doesn't.
I would prefer to teach uclamp_util_with() to accept a NULL rq argument, then
we can have 2 convenient function uclamp_rq_util() and uclamp_task_util() that
are just simple wrappers around it. It'd would be a lot better to keep the
intelligence of dealing with the correct details of clamping in a single
function IMO.
Cheers
--
Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists