On 29/04/2020 14:30, Qais Yousef wrote:
> Hi Pavan
>
> On 04/29/20 17:02, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
>> Hi Qais,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 05:41:33PM +0100, Qais Yousef wrote:
[...]
>>> @@ -907,8 +935,15 @@ uclamp_tg_restrict(struct task_struct *p, enum
>>> uclamp_id clamp_id)
>>> static inline struct uclamp_se
>>> uclamp_eff_get(struct task_struct *p, enum uclamp_id clamp_id)
>>> {
>>> - struct uclamp_se uc_req = uclamp_tg_restrict(p, clamp_id);
>>> - struct uclamp_se uc_max = uclamp_default[clamp_id];
>>> + struct uclamp_se uc_req, uc_max;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * Sync up any change to sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_min_rt_default value.
>>> + */
>>> + uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default(p);
>>> +
>>> + uc_req = uclamp_tg_restrict(p, clamp_id);
>>> + uc_max = uclamp_default[clamp_id];
>>
>> We are calling uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default() unnecessarily for
>> clamp_id == UCLAMP_MAX case. Would it be better to have a separate
>
> It was actually intentional to make sure we update the value ASAP. I didn't
> think it's a lot of overhead. I can further protect with a check to verify
> whether the value has changed if it seems heavy handed.
Users of uclamp_eff_value()->uclamp_eff_get() ((like
rt_task_fits_capacity())) always call both ids.
So calling uclamp_sync_util_min_rt_default() only for UCLAMP_MIN would
make sense. It's overhead in the fast path for rt tasks.
Since changes to sched_util_clamp_min_rt_default will be fairly rare,
you might even want to consider only doing the uclamp_se_set(...,
min_rt_default, ...) in case
uc_se->value != sysctl_sched_uclamp_util_min_rt_default
[...]
