On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bell...@arm.com> wrote: > 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 ?
SGTM. > > 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