On 08-Sep 20:02, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Patrick Bellasi > <patrick.bell...@arm.com> wrote:
[...] > > + cpu.util.min.effective > > + A read-only single value file which exists on non-root cgroups and > > + reports minimum utilization clamp value currently enforced on a > > task > > + group. > > + > > + The actual minimum utilization in the range [0, 1023]. > > + > > + This value can be lower then cpu.util.min in case a parent cgroup > > + is enforcing a more restrictive clamping on minimum utilization. > > IMHO if cpu.util.min=0 means "no restrictions" on UCLAMP_MIN then > calling parent's lower cpu.util.min value "more restrictive clamping" > is confusing. I would suggest to rephrase this to smth like "...in > case a parent cgroup requires lower cpu.util.min clamping." Right, it's slightly confusing... still I would like to call out that a parent group can enforce something on its children. What about: "... a parent cgroup allows only smaller minimum utilization values." Is that less confusing ? Otherwise I think your proposal could work too. [...] > > #ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP > > +/** > > + * cpu_util_update_hier: propagete effective clamp down the hierarchy > > typo: propagate +1 [...] > > + * Skip the whole subtrees if the current effective clamp is > > + * alredy matching the TG's clamp value. > > typo: already +1 Cheers, Patrick -- #include <best/regards.h> Patrick Bellasi
