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;
Date:   Wed, 23 Jan 2019 20:22:01 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@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>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/16] sched/core: Add uclamp_util_with()
Message-ID: <20190123192201.GK13777@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190115101513.2822-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20190115101513.2822-11-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20190123133324.GY27931@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190123145106.zaqb3d6l65rs5lg6@e110439-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190123145106.zaqb3d6l65rs5lg6@e110439-lin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 02:51:06PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 23-Jan 14:33, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:15:07AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > +static __always_inline
> > > +unsigned int uclamp_util_with(struct rq *rq, unsigned int util,
> > > +			      struct task_struct *p)
> > >  {
> > >  	unsigned int min_util = READ_ONCE(rq->uclamp[UCLAMP_MIN].value);
> > >  	unsigned int max_util = READ_ONCE(rq->uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX].value);
> > >  
> > > +	if (p) {
> > > +		min_util = max(min_util, uclamp_effective_value(p, UCLAMP_MIN));
> > > +		max_util = max(max_util, uclamp_effective_value(p, UCLAMP_MAX));
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > 
> > Like I think you mentioned earlier; this doesn't look right at all.
> 
> What we wanna do here is to compute what _will_ be the clamp values of
> a CPU if we enqueue *p on it.
> 
> The code above starts from the current CPU clamp value and mimics what
> uclamp will do in case we move the task there... which is always a max
> aggregation.

Ah, then I misunderstood the purpose of this function.

> > Should that not be something like:
> > 
> > 	lo = READ_ONCE(rq->uclamp[UCLAMP_MIN].value);
> > 	hi = READ_ONCE(rq->uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX].value);
> > 
> > 	min_util = clamp(uclamp_effective(p, UCLAMP_MIN), lo, hi);
> > 	max_util = clamp(uclamp_effective(p, UCLAMP_MAX), lo, hi);
> 
> Here you end up with a restriction of the task clamp (effective)
> clamps values considering the CPU clamps... which is different.
> 
> Why do you think we should do that?... perhaps I'm missing something.

I was left with the impression from patch 7 that we don't compose clamps
right and throught that was what this code was supposed to do.

I'll have another look at this patch.