Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:04:26 +0100 | From | Patrick Bellasi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched/core: uclamp: add CPU clamp groups accounting |
| |
On 13-Apr 12:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 10:26:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 05:56:09PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > > +static inline void uclamp_cpu_get(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int clamp_id) > > > +{ > > > + struct uclamp_cpu *uc_cpu = &cpu_rq(cpu)->uclamp[clamp_id]; > > > > > +static inline void uclamp_cpu_put(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int clamp_id) > > > +{ > > > + struct uclamp_cpu *uc_cpu = &cpu_rq(cpu)->uclamp[clamp_id]; > > > > That all seems daft, since you already have rq at the call site. > > > > > +static inline void uclamp_task_update(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p) > > > +{ > > > + int cpu = cpu_of(rq); > > > + int clamp_id; > > > + > > > + /* The idle task does not affect CPU's clamps */ > > > + if (unlikely(p->sched_class == &idle_sched_class)) > > > + return; > > > + /* DEADLINE tasks do not affect CPU's clamps */ > > > + if (unlikely(p->sched_class == &dl_sched_class)) > > > + return; > > > > This is wrong; it misses the stop_sched_class. > > > > And since you're looking at sched_class anyway, maybe put a marker in > > there: > > > > if (!p->sched_class->has_clamping) > > return; > > Alternatively, we could simply add uclamp_task_{en,de}queue() into > {en,de}queue_task_{fair,rt}().
I like better your first proposal, I think it makes sense to factor out in core code used by both RT and FAIR the same way.
Do you have a strong preference?
> > > + for (clamp_id = 0; clamp_id < UCLAMP_CNT; ++clamp_id) { > > > + if (uclamp_task_affects(p, clamp_id)) > > > + uclamp_cpu_put(p, cpu, clamp_id); > > > + else > > > + uclamp_cpu_get(p, cpu, clamp_id); > > > + } > > > +}
-- #include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
|  |