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:   Thu, 14 Mar 2019 11:45:51 +0000
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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 v7 01/15] sched/core: uclamp: Add CPU's clamp buckets
 refcounting
Message-ID: <20190314114551.6kfozh6rpw5mornb@e110439-lin>
References: <20190208100554.32196-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20190208100554.32196-2-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20190313140925.GE5922@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190313152359.lkyzel7fakjoi5hu@e110439-lin>
 <20190313194619.GR2482@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190313194619.GR2482@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 13-Mar 20:46, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 03:23:59PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 13-Mar 15:09, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:05:40AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> 
> > > > +static inline void uclamp_rq_update(struct rq *rq, unsigned int clamp_id)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct uclamp_bucket *bucket = rq->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket;
> > > > +	unsigned int max_value = uclamp_none(clamp_id);
> > > 
> > > That's 1024 for uclamp_max
> > > 
> > > > +	unsigned int bucket_id;
> > > > +
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Both min and max clamps are MAX aggregated, thus the topmost
> > > > +	 * bucket with some tasks defines the rq's clamp value.
> > > > +	 */
> > > > +	bucket_id = UCLAMP_BUCKETS;
> > > > +	do {
> > > > +		--bucket_id;
> > > > +		if (!rq->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket[bucket_id].tasks)
> > > > +			continue;
> > > > +		max_value = bucket[bucket_id].value;
> > > 
> > > but this will then _lower_ it. That's not a MAX aggregate.
> > 
> > For uclamp_max we want max_value=1024 when there are no active tasks,
> > which means: no max clamp enforced on CFS/RT "idle" cpus.
> > 
> > If instead there are active RT/CFS tasks then we want the clamp value
> > of the max group, which means: MAX aggregate active clamps.
> > 
> > That's what the code above does and the comment says.
> 
> That's (obviously) not how I read it.... maybe something like:
> 
> static inline void uclamp_rq_update(struct rq *rq, unsigned int clamp_id)
> {
> 	struct uclamp_bucket *bucket = rq->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket;
> 	int i;
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Since both min and max clamps are max aggregated, find the
> 	 * top most bucket with tasks in.
> 	 */
> 	for (i = UCLMAP_BUCKETS-1; i>=0; i--) {
> 		if (!bucket[i].tasks)
> 			continue;
> 		return bucket[i].value;
> 	}
> 
> 	/* No tasks -- default clamp value */
> 	return uclamp_none(clamp_id);
> }
> 
> would make it clearer?

Fine for me, I'll then change the name in something else since that's
not more an "_update" by moving the WRITE_ONCE into the caller.

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi