Messages in this thread | | | From | Xuewen Yan <> | Date | Tue, 8 Jun 2021 23:01:59 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched/uclamp: Avoid setting cpu.uclamp.min bigger than cpu.uclamp.max |
| |
Hi
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 10:25 PM Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com> wrote: > > --->8--- > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > index 9e9a5be35cde..1d2d3e6648a6 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > @@ -1403,38 +1403,28 @@ static void uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default(void) > static inline struct uclamp_se > uclamp_tg_restrict(struct task_struct *p, enum uclamp_id clamp_id) > { > - struct uclamp_se uc_req = p->uclamp_req[clamp_id]; > + /* Copy by value as we could modify it */ > + struct uclamp_se uc_eff = p->uclamp_req[clamp_id]; > #ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP > + unsigned long tg_min, tg_max, value; > > /* > * Tasks in autogroups or root task group will be > * restricted by system defaults. > */ > if (task_group_is_autogroup(task_group(p))) > - return uc_req; > + return uc_eff; > if (task_group(p) == &root_task_group) > - return uc_req; > + return uc_eff; > > - switch (clamp_id) { > - case UCLAMP_MIN: { > - struct uclamp_se uc_min = task_group(p)->uclamp[clamp_id]; > - if (uc_req.value < uc_min.value) > - return uc_min; > - break; > - } > - case UCLAMP_MAX: { > - struct uclamp_se uc_max = task_group(p)->uclamp[clamp_id]; > - if (uc_req.value > uc_max.value) > - return uc_max; > - break; > - } > - default: > - WARN_ON_ONCE(1); > - break; > - } > + tg_min = task_group(p)->uclamp[UCLAMP_MIN].value; > + tg_max = task_group(p)->uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX].value; > + value = uc_eff.value; > + value = clamp(value, tg_min, tg_max); > + uclamp_se_set(&uc_eff, value, false);
Is it reasonable to set user_defined to be false here?
> #endif > > - return uc_req; > + return uc_eff; > } > > /* > @@ -1661,8 +1651,7 @@ uclamp_update_active(struct task_struct *p, enum uclamp_id clamp_id) > > #ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP > static inline void > -uclamp_update_active_tasks(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css, > - unsigned int clamps) > +uclamp_update_active_tasks(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css) > { > enum uclamp_id clamp_id; > struct css_task_iter it; > @@ -1670,10 +1659,8 @@ uclamp_update_active_tasks(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css, > > css_task_iter_start(css, 0, &it); > while ((p = css_task_iter_next(&it))) { > - for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id) { > - if ((0x1 << clamp_id) & clamps) > - uclamp_update_active(p, clamp_id); > - } > + for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id) > + uclamp_update_active(p, clamp_id); > } > css_task_iter_end(&it); > } > @@ -9626,7 +9613,7 @@ static void cpu_util_update_eff(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css) > } > > /* Immediately update descendants RUNNABLE tasks */ > - uclamp_update_active_tasks(css, clamps); > + uclamp_update_active_tasks(css); > } > }
Would you resend another email? maybe it would be better to resend an email with a new subject?
BR xuewen
| |