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
