Re: [PATCH v7 01/15] sched/core: uclamp: Add CPU's clamp buckets refcounting

[Patrick Bellasi]

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