On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 02:40:11PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 23-Jan 11:49, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:15:06AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > @@ -858,16 +859,23 @@ static inline void
> > > uclamp_effective_get(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id,
> > > unsigned int *clamp_value, unsigned int *bucket_id)
> > > {
> > > + struct uclamp_se *default_clamp;
> > > +
> > > /* Task specific clamp value */
> > > *clamp_value = p->uclamp[clamp_id].value;
> > > *bucket_id = p->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket_id;
> > >
> > > + /* RT tasks have different default values */
> > > + default_clamp = task_has_rt_policy(p)
> > > + ? uclamp_default_perf
> > > + : uclamp_default;
> > > +
> > > /* System default restriction */
> > > - if (unlikely(*clamp_value < uclamp_default[UCLAMP_MIN].value ||
> > > - *clamp_value > uclamp_default[UCLAMP_MAX].value)) {
> > > + if (unlikely(*clamp_value < default_clamp[UCLAMP_MIN].value ||
> > > + *clamp_value > default_clamp[UCLAMP_MAX].value)) {
> > > /* Keep it simple: unconditionally enforce system defaults */
> > > - *clamp_value = uclamp_default[clamp_id].value;
> > > - *bucket_id = uclamp_default[clamp_id].bucket_id;
> > > + *clamp_value = default_clamp[clamp_id].value;
> > > + *bucket_id = default_clamp[clamp_id].bucket_id;
> > > }
> > > }
> >
> > So I still don't much like the whole effective thing;
>
> :/
>
> I find back-annotation useful in many cases since we have different
> sources for possible clamp values:
>
> 1. task specific
> 2. cgroup defined
> 3. system defaults
> 4. system power default
(I'm not sure I've seen 4 happen yet, what's that?)
Anyway, once you get range composition defined; that should be something
like:
R_p \Compose_g R_g
Where R_p is the range of task-p, and R_g is the range of the g'th
cgroup of p (where you can make an identity between the root cgroup and
the system default).
Now; as per the other email; I think the straight forward composition:
struct range compose(struct range a, struct range b)
{
return (range){.min = clamp(a.min, b.min, b.max),
.max = clamp(a.max, b.min, b.max), };
}
(note that this is non-commutative, so we have to pay attention to
get the order 'right')
Works in this case; unlike the cpu/rq conposition where we resort to a
pure max function for non-interference.
> I don't think we can avoid to somehow back annotate on which bucket a
> task has been refcounted... it makes dequeue so much easier, it helps
> in ensuring that the refcouning is consistent and enable lazy updates.
So I'll have to go over the code again, but I'm wondering why you're
changing uclamp_se::bucket_id on a runnable task.
Ideally you keep bucket_id invariant between enqueue and dequeue; then
dequeue knows where we put it.
Now I suppose actually determining bucket_id is 'expensive' (it
certainly is with the whole mapping scheme, but even that integer
division is not nice), so we'd like to precompute the bucket_id.
This then leads to the problem of how to change uclamp_se::value while
runnable (since per the other thread you don't want to always update all
runnable tasks).
So far so right?
I'm thikning that if we haz a single bit, say:
struct uclamp_se {
...
unsigned int changed : 1;
};
We can update uclamp_se::value and set uclamp_se::changed, and then the
next enqueue will (unlikely) test-and-clear changed and recompute the
bucket_id.
Would that not be simpler?
