Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210602123803.15738-1-xuewen.yan94@gmail.com>
 <YLeF/556Wbvx1Ssc@google.com> <CAB8ipk9BqzEQ4Ta5s+vJeep=v1pmaXS-WsF2tq0u9G8Q2PGmsA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20210604160839.2op4ak75vle3gmt3@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210604160839.2op4ak75vle3gmt3@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
From:   Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 5 Jun 2021 10:12:29 +0800
Message-ID: <CAB8ipk9CgWvbGnJcvEtLcG=7v-pPmGJd25-R9jb2Am5zKngK3g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/uclamp: Avoid setting cpu.uclamp.min bigger than cpu.uclamp.max
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Cc:     Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>,
        Ryan Y <xuewyan@foxmail.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>, tj@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi Qais,

On Sat, Jun 5, 2021 at 12:08 AM Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/03/21 10:24, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > +CC Qais
>
> Thanks for the CC :)
>
> >
> >
> > Hi Quentin
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:22 PM Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com> wrot=
e:
> > >
> > > +CC Patrick and Tejun
> > >
> > > On Wednesday 02 Jun 2021 at 20:38:03 (+0800), Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > > From: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@unisoc.com>
> > > >
> > > > When setting cpu.uclamp.min/max in cgroup, there is no validating
> > > > like uclamp_validate() in __sched_setscheduler(). It may cause the
> > > > cpu.uclamp.min is bigger than cpu.uclamp.max.
> > >
> > > ISTR this was intentional. We also allow child groups to ask for
> > > whatever clamps they want, but that is always limited by the parent, =
and
> > > reflected in the 'effective' values, as per the cgroup delegation mod=
el.
>
> As Quentin said. This intentional to comply with cgroup model.
>
> See Limits and Protections sections in Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v=
2.rst
>
> Specifically
>
>         "all configuration combinations are valid"
>
> So user can set cpu.uclamp.min higher than cpu.uclamp.max. But when we ap=
ply
> the setting, cpu.uclamp.min will be capped by cpu.uclamp.max. I can see y=
ou
> found the cpu_util_update_eff() logic.
>

Thanks a lot for your patience to explain, sorry for my ignorance of
Documentation/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.rst.

> >
> > It does not affect the 'effective' value. That because there is
> > protection in cpu_util_update_eff():
> > /* Ensure protection is always capped by limit */
> > eff[UCLAMP_MIN] =3D min(eff[UCLAMP_MIN], eff[UCLAMP_MAX]);
> >
> > When users set the cpu.uclamp.min > cpu.uclamp.max:
> > cpu.uclamp.max =3D 50;
> > to set : cpu.uclamp.min =3D 60;
> > That would make the uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MIN].value =3D 1024* 60% =3D 614,
> > uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MAX].value =3D 1024* 50% =3D 512;
> > But finally, the  uclamp[UCLAMP_MIN].value =3D uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX].value
> > =3D 1024* 50% =3D 512;
> >
> > Is it deliberately set not to validate because of the above?
>
> Sorry I'm not following you here. What code paths were you trying to expl=
ain
> here?
>
> Did you actually hit any problem here?

I just gave an example of the difference of uclamp_req and uclamp
without my patch, and can ignore it.

>
In addition=EF=BC=8CIn your patch:
6938840392c89 ("sched/uclamp: Fix wrong implementation of cpu.uclamp.min")
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210510145032.1934078-2-qais.yousef@arm.com

+ switch (clamp_id) {
+ case UCLAMP_MIN: {
+ struct uclamp_se uc_min =3D task_group(p)->uclamp[clamp_id];
+ if (uc_req.value < uc_min.value)
+ return uc_min;
+ break;

When the clamp_id =3D UCLAMP_MIN, why not judge the uc_req.value is
bigger than task_group(p)->uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX] ?
Because when the p->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MIN] >  task_group(p)->uclamp[UCLAMP_=
MAX],
the patch can not clamp the p->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MIN/MAX] into
[ task_group(p)->uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX],  task_group(p)->uclamp[UCLAMP_MAX] ].

Is it necessary to fix it here=EF=BC=9F

Thanks
xuewen