From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>
To: Zihuan Zhang <zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn>,
xuewen.yan@unisoc.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com
Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
vschneid@redhat.com, hongyan.xia2@arm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ke.wang@unisoc.com,
di.shen@unisoc.com, xuewen.yan94@gmail.com,
kuyo.chang@mediatek.com, juju.sung@mediatek.com,
qyousef@layalina.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] sched/uclamp: Skip uclamp_rq_dec() for non-final dequeue of delayed tasks
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 08:42:57 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1b0a41ce-5fcc-4ea8-83ca-a2bd5ef765c9@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0396755a-58be-4f7d-99f9-6b63d35e6e65@kylinos.cn>
Hello Zihuan,
On 7/2/2025 6:23 AM, Zihuan Zhang wrote:
> As a follow-up question: would it make sense to defensively guard uclamp_rq_dec() with something like:
> if (!task_on_rq_queued(p))
> return;
uclamp_rq_dec() is only called from dequeue_task() and that
should only be called when task_on_rq_queued().
> I understand this is not required with the current call structure, but I wonder whether such a check would be reasonable to prevent accidental double-dec in case of future changes or obscure paths.
> Or would this be considered unnecessary runtime overhead and better caught by path analysis?
On a closer look at uclamp_rq_dec_id(), I think "uc_se->active"
will guard against a double accounting. But that is not a good
reason to sprinkle redundant calls.
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-02 3:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-01 9:34 Zihuan Zhang
2025-07-01 10:49 ` Xuewen Yan
2025-07-02 0:48 ` Zihuan Zhang
2025-07-01 11:00 ` K Prateek Nayak
2025-07-02 0:53 ` Zihuan Zhang
2025-07-02 3:12 ` K Prateek Nayak [this message]
2025-07-03 9:03 ` Zihuan Zhang
2025-07-03 12:22 ` Christian Loehle
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1b0a41ce-5fcc-4ea8-83ca-a2bd5ef765c9@amd.com \
--to=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=di.shen@unisoc.com \
--cc=hongyan.xia2@arm.com \
--cc=juju.sung@mediatek.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=ke.wang@unisoc.com \
--cc=kuyo.chang@mediatek.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=xuewen.yan94@gmail.com \
--cc=xuewen.yan@unisoc.com \
--cc=zhangzihuan@kylinos.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®