On 08-May 21:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 09:07:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:41:40AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > +static inline struct uclamp_se
> > > +uclamp_eff_get(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id)
> > > +{
> > > + struct uclamp_se uc_req = p->uclamp_req[clamp_id];
> > > + struct uclamp_se uc_max = uclamp_default[clamp_id];
> > > +
> > > + /* System default restrictions always apply */
> > > + if (unlikely(uc_req.value > uc_max.value))
> > > + return uc_max;
> > > +
> > > + return uc_req;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline unsigned int
> > > +uclamp_eff_bucket_id(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id)
> > > +{
> > > + struct uclamp_se uc_eff;
> > > +
> > > + /* Task currently refcounted: use back-annotated (effective) bucket */
> > > + if (p->uclamp[clamp_id].active)
> > > + return p->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket_id;
> > > +
> > > + uc_eff = uclamp_eff_get(p, clamp_id);
> > > +
> > > + return uc_eff.bucket_id;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +unsigned int uclamp_eff_value(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int
> > > clamp_id)
> > > +{
> > > + struct uclamp_se uc_eff;
> > > +
> > > + /* Task currently refcounted: use back-annotated (effective) value */
> > > + if (p->uclamp[clamp_id].active)
> > > + return p->uclamp[clamp_id].value;
> > > +
> > > + uc_eff = uclamp_eff_get(p, clamp_id);
> > > +
> > > + return uc_eff.value;
> > > +}
> >
> > This is 'wrong' because:
> >
> > uclamp_eff_value(p,id) := uclamp_eff(p,id).value
>
> Clearly I means to say the above does not hold with the given
> implementation, while the naming would suggest it does.
Not sure to completely get your point...
AFAIU, what you call uclamp_eff(p, id).value is the "value" member of
the struct returned by uclamp_eff_get(p,id), which is back annotate
by uclamp_rq_inc_id(p, rq, id) in:
p->uclamp[clamp_id].value
when a task becomes RUNNABLE.
> > Which seems to suggest the uclamp_eff_*() functions want another name.
That function returns the effective value of a task, which is either:
1. the back annotated value for a RUNNABLE task
or
2. the aggregation of task-specific, system-default and cgroup values
for a non RUNNABLE task.
> > Also, suppose the above would be true; does GCC really generate better
> > code for the LHS compared to the RHS?
It generate "sane" code which implements the above logic and allows
to know that whenever we call uclamp_eff_value(p,id) we get the most
updated effective value for a task, independently from its {!}RUNNABLE
state.
I would keep the function but, since Suren also complained also about
the name... perhaps I should come up with a better name? Proposals?
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
