On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 06:52:03PM +0200, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
Hi Patrick,
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 15:32:46 +0200, Qais Yousef <qais.you...@arm.com>
> wrote...
>
> > On 10/13/20 13:46, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> >> > So IMO you just need a single SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_RESET that if set in
> >> > the
> >> > attr, you just execute that loop in __setscheduler_uclamp() + reset
> >> > uc_se->user_defined.
> >> >
> >> > It should be invalid to pass the SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_RESET with
> >> > SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_MIN/MAX. Both have contradictory meaning IMO.
> >> > If user passes both we should return an EINVAL error.
> >>
> >> Passing in _CLAMP_RESET|_CLAMP_MIN will mean reset the min value while
> >> keeping the max at whatever it is. I think there could be cases where
> >> this support could be on hand.
> >
> > I am not convinced personally. I'm anxious about what this fine grained
> > control
> > means and how it should be used. I think less is more in this case and we
> > can
> > always relax the restriction (appropriately) later if it's *really*
> > required.
> >
> > Particularly the fact that this user_defined is per uclamp_se and that it
> > affects the cgroup behavior is implementation details this API shouldn't
> > rely
> > on.
>
> The user_defined flag is an implementation details: true, but since the
> beginning uclamp _always_ allowed a task to set only one of its clamp
> values.
>
> That's why we have UTIL_CLAMP_{MIN,MAX} as separate flags and all the
> logic in place to set only one of the two.
I agree that UTIL_CLAMP_{MIN,MAX} should be able to set separately.
So the flag usage might be
_CLAMP_RESET => ?
_CLAMP_RESET | _CLAMP_MIN => reset min value
_CLAMP_RESET | _CLAMP_MAX => reset max value
_CLAMP_RESET | _CLAMP_MIN | _CLAMP_MAX => reset both min and max
If user pass _CLAMP_RESET without _CLAMP_MIN or _CLAMP MAX,
Should we reset both min & max value or return EINVAL error?
>
>
> > A generic RESET my uclamp settings makes more sense for me as a long term
> > API to maintain.
> >
> > Actually maybe we should even go for a more explicit
> > SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_INHERIT_CGROUP flag instead. If we decide to abandon
> > the
> > support for this feature in the future, at least we can make it return an
> > error
> > without affecting other functionality because of the implicit nature of
> > SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_RESET means inherit cgroup value too.
>
> That's not true and it's an even worst implementation detail what you
> want to expose.
>
> A task without a task specific clamp _always_ inherits the system
> defaults. Resetting a task specific clamp already makes sense also
> _without_ cgroups. It means: just do whatever the system allows you to
> do.
>
> Only if you are running with CGRoups enabled and the task happens to be
> _not_ in the root group, the "CGroups inheritance" happens.
> But that's exactly an internal detail a task should not care about.
I prefer to use SCHED_FLAG_UTIL_CLAMP_RESET because cgroup inheritance
is default behavior when task doesn't set it's uclamp.
>
> > That being said, I am not strongly against the fine grained approach if
> > that's
> > what Yun wants now or what you both prefer.
>
> It's not a fine grained approach, it's just adding a reset mechanism for
> what uclamp already allows to do: setting min and max clamps
> independently.
>
> Regarding use cases, I also believe we have many more use cases of tasks
> interested in setting/resetting just one clamp than tasks interested in
> "fine grain" controlling both clamps at the same time.
>
>
> > I just think the name of the flag needs to change to be more explicit
> > too then.
>
> I don't agree on that and, again, I see much more fine grained details and
> internals exposure in what you propose compared to a single generic
> _RESET flag.
>
> > It'd be good to hear what others think.
>
> I agree on that ;)
>
