On 06/19/20 19:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 08:55:25PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
>
> > +/*
> > + * This static key is used to reduce the uclamp overhead in the fast path.
> > It
> > + * only disables the call to uclamp_rq_{inc, dec}() in
> > enqueue/dequeue_task().
> > + *
> > + * This allows users to continue to enable uclamp in their kernel config
> > with
> > + * minimum uclamp overhead in the fast path.
> > + *
> > + * As soon as userspace modifies any of the uclamp knobs, the static key is
> > + * disabled, since we have an actual users that make use of uclamp
> > + * functionality.
> > + *
> > + * The knobs that would disable this static key are:
> > + *
> > + * * A task modifying its uclamp value with sched_setattr().
> > + * * An admin modifying the sysctl_sched_uclamp_{min, max} via procfs.
> > + * * An admin modifying the cgroup cpu.uclamp.{min, max}
> > + */
> > +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_TRUE(sched_uclamp_unused);
>
> Maybe call the thing: 'sched_uclamp_users', instead?
>
>
> > + if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_uclamp_unused))
> > + static_branch_disable(&sched_uclamp_unused);
>
>
> > + if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_uclamp_unused))
> > + static_branch_disable(&sched_uclamp_unused);
>
>
> > + if (static_branch_unlikely(&sched_uclamp_unused))
> > + static_branch_disable(&sched_uclamp_unused);
>
> That's an anti-pattern... just static_branch_disable(), or _enable()
> with a 'better' name is sufficient.
I misread the code. I saw there's a WAN_ON_ONCE() but that only triggers if the
atomic variable has a value that is ! in (0, 1) range.
So yes we can call it unconditionally.
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
