lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v13 2/6] sched/core: uclamp: Propagate parent clamps
Date

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 17:11:53 +0100, Michal Koutný wrote...

> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:08:49AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> wrote:
>> @@ -7095,6 +7149,7 @@ static ssize_t cpu_uclamp_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
>> if (req.ret)
>> return req.ret;
>>
>> + mutex_lock(&uclamp_mutex);
>> rcu_read_lock();
>>
>> tg = css_tg(of_css(of));
>> @@ -7107,7 +7162,11 @@ static ssize_t cpu_uclamp_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *buf,
>> */
>> tg->uclamp_pct[clamp_id] = req.percent;
>>
>> + /* Update effective clamps to track the most restrictive value */
>> + cpu_util_update_eff(of_css(of));
>> +
>> rcu_read_unlock();
>> + mutex_unlock(&uclamp_mutex);
> Following my remarks to "[PATCH v13 1/6] sched/core: uclamp: Extend
> CPU's cgroup", I wonder if the rcu_read_lock() couldn't be moved right
> before cpu_util_update_eff(). And by extension rcu_read_(un)lock could
> be hidden into cpu_util_update_eff() closer to its actual need.

Well, if I've got correctly your comment in the previous message, I
would say that at this stage we don't need RCU looks at all.

Reason being that cpu_util_update_eff() gets called only from
cpu_uclamp_write() which is from an ongoing write operation on a cgroup
attribute and thus granted to be available.

We will eventually need to move the RCU look only down the stack when
uclamp_update_active_tasks() gets called to update the RUNNABLE tasks on
a RQ... or perhaps we don't need them since we already get the
task_rq_lock() for each task we visit.

Is that correct?

Cheers,
Patrick

--
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-08 17:10    [W:0.133 / U:3.992 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site