On 17-Apr 17:51, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:42 AM Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@xxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> > +/*
> > + * The effective clamp bucket index of a task depends on, by increasing
> > + * priority:
> > + * - the task specific clamp value, when explicitly requested from userspace
> > + * - the system default clamp value, defined by the sysadmin
> > + */
> > +static inline struct uclamp_se
> > +uclamp_eff_get(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id)
> > +{
> > + struct uclamp_se uc_req = p->uclamp_req[clamp_id];
> > + struct uclamp_se uc_max = uclamp_default[clamp_id];
> > +
> > + /* System default restrictions always apply */
> > + if (unlikely(uc_req.value > uc_max.value))
> > + return uc_max;
> > +
> > + return uc_req;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline unsigned int
> > +uclamp_eff_bucket_id(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id)
>
> This function is not used anywhere AFAIKT.
Right, this is the dual of uclamp_eff_value() but, since we don't
actually use it in the corrent code, let's remove it and keep only the
latter.
> uclamp_eff_bucket_id() and
> uclamp_eff_value() look very similar, maybe they can be combined into
> one function returning struct uclamp_se?
I would prefer not since at the callsites of uclamp_eff_value() we
actually need just the value.
> > +{
> > + struct uclamp_se uc_eff;
> > +
> > + /* Task currently refcounted: use back-annotated (effective) bucket */
> > + if (p->uclamp[clamp_id].active)
> > + return p->uclamp[clamp_id].bucket_id;
> > +
> > + uc_eff = uclamp_eff_get(p, clamp_id);
> > +
> > + return uc_eff.bucket_id;
> > +}
> > +
> > +unsigned int uclamp_eff_value(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int clamp_id)
> > +{
> > + struct uclamp_se uc_eff;
> > +
> > + /* Task currently refcounted: use back-annotated (effective) value */
> > + if (p->uclamp[clamp_id].active)
> > + return p->uclamp[clamp_id].value;
> > +
> > + uc_eff = uclamp_eff_get(p, clamp_id);
> > +
> > + return uc_eff.value;
> > +}
> > +
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
