On 13-Mar 15:15, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 12-Mar 13:52, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > On 2/8/19 11:05 AM, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
[...]
> > > + * within each bucket the exact "requested" clamp value whenever all tasks
> > > + * RUNNABLE in that bucket require the same clamp.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline void uclamp_rq_inc_id(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq,
> > > + unsigned int clamp_id)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned int bucket_id = p->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket_id;
> > > + unsigned int rq_clamp, bkt_clamp, tsk_clamp;
> >
> > Wouldn't it be easier to have a pointer to the task's and rq's uclamp
> > structure as well to the bucket?
> >
> > - unsigned int bucket_id = p->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket_id;
> > + struct uclamp_se *uc_se = &p->uclamp[clamp_id];
> > + struct uclamp_rq *uc_rq = &rq->uclamp[clamp_id];
> > + struct uclamp_bucket *bucket = &uc_rq->bucket[uc_se->bucket_id];
>
> I think I went back/forth a couple of times in using pointer or the
> extended version, which both have pros and cons.
>
> I personally prefer the pointers as you suggest but I've got the
> impression in the past that since everybody cleared "basic C trainings"
> it's not so difficult to read the code above too.
>
> > The code in uclamp_rq_inc_id() and uclamp_rq_dec_id() for example becomes
> > much more readable.
>
> Agree... let's try to switch once again in v8 and see ;)
This is not as straightforward as I thought.
We either still need local variables to use with max(), which does not
play well with bitfields values, or we have to avoid using it and go
back to conditional updates:
---8<---
static inline void uclamp_rq_inc_id(struct task_struct *p, struct rq *rq,
unsigned int clamp_id)
{
struct uclamp_rq *uc_rq = &rq->uclamp[clamp_id];
struct uclamp_req *uc_se = &p->uclamp_se[clamp_id];
struct uclamp_bucket *bucket = &uc_rq->bucket[uc_se->bucket_id];
bucket->tasks++;
/*
* Local clamping: rq's buckets always track the max "requested"
* clamp value from all RUNNABLE tasks in that bucket.
*/
if (uc_se->value > bucket->value)
bucket->value = uc_se->value;
if (uc_se->value > READ_ONCE(uc_rq->value))
WRITE_ONCE(uc_rq->value, uc_se->value);
}
---8<---
I remember Peter asking for max() in one of the past reviews.. but the
code above looks simpler to me too... let see if this time it can be
accepted. :)
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
