Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 12:32:18 -0400
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        ctheegal@codeaurora.org, dianders@chromium.org,
        patrick.bellasi@matbug.net, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
        qais.yousef@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Fix reset-on-fork from RT with uclamp
Message-ID: <20200414163218.GA77963@google.com>
References: <20200414161320.251897-1-qperret@google.com>
 <20200414162128.GA66453@google.com>
 <20200414162713.GA256619@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200414162713.GA256619@google.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 05:27:13PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 Apr 2020 at 12:21:28 (-0400), Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > Shouldn't this be conditional on p->sched_reset_on_fork instead of deleting
> > the code?
> 
> Right, it's not obvious from the diff, but this code _is_ conditional on
> p->sched_reset_on_fork already. This is what the whole function looks
> like with my patch applied:
> 
> ---8<---
> static void uclamp_fork(struct task_struct *p)
> {
>         enum uclamp_id clamp_id;
> 
>         for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id)
>                 p->uclamp[clamp_id].active = false;
> 
>         if (likely(!p->sched_reset_on_fork))
>                 return;
> 
>         for_each_clamp_id(clamp_id) {
>                 unsigned int clamp_value = uclamp_none(clamp_id);
> 
>                 uclamp_se_set(&p->uclamp_req[clamp_id], clamp_value, false);
>         }

Oh ok, thanks for clarification.

 - Joel


> }
> --->8---
> 
> Thanks,
> Quentin