Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180912125133.GE1413@e110439-lin>
References: <20180828135324.21976-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180828135324.21976-9-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <CAJuCfpHaqNzgpbPCAUxsv+E4HL6vSDKem+sFh2njK1e9dX5ONA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180912125133.GE1413@e110439-lin>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 08:56:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpEVEohpfYCaca_NXkfe+5fhrzLE+mux2ffQD0SMG24mCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/16] sched/core: uclamp: propagate parent clamps
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Patrick Bellasi
<patrick.bellasi@arm.com> wrote:
> 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 ?

SGTM.

>
> 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