[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d83950c4-7458-aeea-f341-327c163704a8@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 07:18:51 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: David Dai <davidai@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...gle.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] sched/uclamp: Introduce
SCHED_FLAG_RESET_UCLAMP_ON_FORK flag
On 16/04/2023 23:34, David Dai wrote:
> A userspace service may manage uclamp dynamically for individual tasks and
> a child task will unintentionally inherit a pesudo-random uclamp setting.
> This could result in the child task being stuck with a static uclamp value
Could you explain this with a little bit more detail? Why isn't the
child task also managed by the userspace service?
The child task will only make a difference if it's on the rq.
Does this issue happen with uclamp mainline or only with Android's
slightly different version (max- vs. sum aggregation)?
> that results in poor performance or poor power.
>
> Using SCHED_FLAG_RESET_ON_FORK is too coarse for this usecase and will
> reset other useful scheduler attributes. Adding a
> SCHED_FLAG_RESET_UCLAMP_ON_FORK will allow userspace to have finer control
> over scheduler attributes of child processes.
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists