Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 12 Sep 2018 13:51:33 +0100 | From | Patrick Bellasi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 08/16] sched/core: uclamp: propagate parent clamps |
| |
On 08-Sep 20:02, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Patrick Bellasi > <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> wrote:
[...]
> > + cpu.util.min.effective > > + A read-only single value file which exists on non-root cgroups and > > + reports minimum utilization clamp value currently enforced on a task > > + group. > > + > > + The actual minimum utilization in the range [0, 1023]. > > + > > + This value can be lower then cpu.util.min in case a parent cgroup > > + is enforcing a more restrictive clamping on minimum utilization. > > IMHO if cpu.util.min=0 means "no restrictions" on UCLAMP_MIN then > calling parent's lower cpu.util.min value "more restrictive clamping" > is confusing. I would suggest to rephrase this to smth like "...in > case a parent cgroup requires lower cpu.util.min clamping."
Right, it's slightly confusing... still I would like to call out that a parent group can enforce something on its children. What about:
"... a parent cgroup allows only smaller minimum utilization values."
Is that less confusing ?
Otherwise I think your proposal could work too.
[...]
> > #ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP > > +/** > > + * cpu_util_update_hier: propagete effective clamp down the hierarchy > > typo: propagate
+1
[...]
> > + * Skip the whole subtrees if the current effective clamp is > > + * alredy matching the TG's clamp value. > > typo: already
+1
Cheers, Patrick
-- #include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
| |