[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200414163218.GA77963@google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 12:32:18 -0400
From: Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
ctheegal@...eaurora.org, dianders@...omium.org,
patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, valentin.schneider@....com,
qais.yousef@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Fix reset-on-fork from RT with uclamp
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 05:27:13PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 Apr 2020 at 12:21:28 (-0400), Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Shouldn't this be conditional on p->sched_reset_on_fork instead of deleting
> > the code?
>
> Right, it's not obvious from the diff, but this code _is_ conditional on
> p->sched_reset_on_fork already. This is what the whole function looks
> like with my patch applied:
>
> ---8<---
> static void uclamp_fork(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> enum uclamp_id clamp_id;
>
> for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id)
> p->uclamp[clamp_id].active = false;
>
> if (likely(!p->sched_reset_on_fork))
> return;
>
> for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id) {
> unsigned int clamp_value = uclamp_none(clamp_id);
>
> uclamp_se_set(&p->uclamp_req[clamp_id], clamp_value, false);
> }
Oh ok, thanks for clarification.
- Joel
> }
> --->8---
>
> Thanks,
> Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists