[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201028113943.7jzxbytizrv7wsm3@e107158-lin>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 11:39:43 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>
Cc: Yun Hsiang <hsiang023167@...il.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] sched/uclamp: add SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_RESET
flag to reset uclamp
On 10/28/20 11:11, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> >>
> >> /*
> >> * RT by default have a 100% boost value that could be modified
> >> * at runtime.
> >> */
> >> if (unlikely(rt_task(p) && clamp_id == UCLAMP_MIN))
> >> - __uclamp_update_util_min_rt_default(p);
> >> + value = sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_min_rt_default;
>
> By removing this usage of __uclamp_updadate_util_min_rt_default(p),
> the only other usage remaining is the call from:
> uclamp_udpate_util_min_rt_default().
>
> What about an additional cleanup by in-lining the only surviving usage?
This is not a cleanup IMO. There is special rule about updating that are
encoded and documented in this helper function. Namely:
* p->pi_lock must be held.
* p->uclamp_req[].user_defined must be false.
I don't see open coding helps but rather makes the code harder to read and
prone to introduce bugs if anything gets reshuffled in the future.
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists