[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <801dc546-2723-4bf7-bd65-096213466921@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:57:32 +0000
From: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com>
To: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Cc: dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, vschneid@...hat.com, qyousef@...alina.io,
ke.wang@...soc.com, di.shen@...soc.com, xuewen.yan94@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/uclamp: Add uclamp_is_used() check before
enable it
On 13/02/2025 09:15, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> Because the static_branch_enable() would get the cpus_read_lock(),
> and sometimes users may frequently set the uclamp value of tasks,
> and the uclamp_validate() would call the static_branch_enable()
> frequently, so add the uclamp_is_used() check to prevent calling
> the cpus_read_lock() frequently.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/syscalls.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/syscalls.c b/kernel/sched/syscalls.c
> index 456d339be98f..d718fddadb03 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/syscalls.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/syscalls.c
> @@ -368,7 +368,8 @@ static int uclamp_validate(struct task_struct *p,
> * blocking operation which obviously cannot be done while holding
> * scheduler locks.
> */
> - static_branch_enable(&sched_uclamp_used);
> + if (!uclamp_is_used())
> + static_branch_enable(&sched_uclamp_used);
NIT: I was also wondering about race conditions, and then realized we
never disable this static key, so maybe worth adding a comment here.
>
> return 0;
> }
Reviewed-by: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@....com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists