From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] sched/fair: Fair server interface
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 15:55:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230905135500.GB20703@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <db775d65b18ddac4a75faad6761c6c2abf3efb78.1693510979.git.bristot@kernel.org>
On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 10:28:58PM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> +static ssize_t
> +sched_fair_server_runtime_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *ubuf,
> + size_t cnt, loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> + long cpu = (long) ((struct seq_file *) filp->private_data)->private;
> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u64 runtime;
> + int err;
> +
> + err = kstrtoull_from_user(ubuf, cnt, 10, &runtime);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + raw_spin_rq_lock_irqsave(rq, flags);
> + if (runtime > rq->fair_server.dl_period)
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + else
> + rq->fair_server.dl_runtime = runtime;
> + raw_spin_rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, flags);
> +
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + *ppos += cnt;
> + return cnt;
> +}
> +static ssize_t
> +sched_fair_server_period_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *ubuf,
> + size_t cnt, loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> + long cpu = (long) ((struct seq_file *) filp->private_data)->private;
> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u64 period;
> + int err;
> +
> + err = kstrtoull_from_user(ubuf, cnt, 10, &period);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + if (period < fair_server_period_min || period > fair_server_period_max)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + raw_spin_rq_lock_irqsave(rq, flags);
> + if (period < rq->fair_server.dl_runtime)
> + err = -EINVAL;
> + else
> + rq->fair_server.dl_period = period;
> + raw_spin_rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, flags);
> +
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + *ppos += cnt;
> + return cnt;
> +}
> +static ssize_t
> +sched_fair_server_defer_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *ubuf,
> + size_t cnt, loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> + long cpu = (long) ((struct seq_file *) filp->private_data)->private;
> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u64 defer;
> + int err;
> +
> + err = kstrtoull_from_user(ubuf, cnt, 10, &defer);
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> +
> + if (defer < 0 || defer > 1)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + raw_spin_rq_lock_irqsave(rq, flags);
> + rq->fair_server_defer = defer;
> + raw_spin_rq_unlock_irqrestore(rq, flags);
> +
> + *ppos += cnt;
> + return cnt;
> +}
Surely we can write a single function that does all of that with less
duplication?
Additionally, should not the deadline parameters be vetted by access
control before being accepted ?
Perhaps something like so:
static ssize_t
sched_fair_server_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *ubuf, size_t cnt, loff_t *ppos, enum dl_param param)
{
long cpu = (long) ((struct seq_file *) filp->private_data)->private;
struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
u64 value;
err = kstrtoull_from_user(ubuf, cnt, 10, &value);
if (err)
return err;
scoped_guard (rq_lock_irqsave, rq) {
u64 runtime, deadline, period;
runtime = rq->fair_server.dl_runtime;
deadline = rq->fair_server.dl_deadline;
period = rq->fair_server.dl_period;
switch (param) {
case dl_runtime: runtime = value; break;
case dl_deadline: deadline = value; break;
case dl_period: period = value; break;
}
if (runtime > deadline ||
deadline > period ||
/* more stuff like access controll */)
return -EINVAL;
rq->fair_server.dl_runtime = runtime;
rq->fair_server.dl_deadline = deadline;
rq->fair_server.dl_period = period;
}
*ppos += cnt;
return cnt;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-05 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-31 20:28 [PATCH v4 0/7] SCHED_DEADLINE server infrastructure Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-08-31 20:28 ` [PATCH v4 1/7] sched: Unify runtime accounting across classes Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-09-15 21:41 ` Steven Rostedt
2023-08-31 20:28 ` [PATCH v4 2/7] sched/deadline: Collect sched_dl_entity initialization Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-08-31 20:28 ` [PATCH v4 3/7] sched/deadline: Move bandwidth accounting into {en,de}queue_dl_entity Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-08-31 20:28 ` [PATCH v4 4/7] sched/deadline: Introduce deadline servers Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-08-31 20:28 ` [PATCH v4 5/7] sched/fair: Add trivial fair server Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-08-31 20:28 ` [PATCH v4 6/7] sched/deadline: Deferrable dl server Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-09-05 13:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-05 15:24 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-09-06 8:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-06 14:58 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-09-06 20:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-06 20:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-08 14:14 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-09-08 13:59 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-09-07 8:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-08 15:28 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-09-08 16:11 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-31 20:28 ` [PATCH v4 7/7] sched/fair: Fair server interface Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-09-01 2:01 ` kernel test robot
2023-09-05 13:55 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-09-05 16:17 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira
2023-09-06 7:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-09-06 8:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20230905135500.GB20703@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=bristot@kernel.org \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pauld@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vineeth@bitbyteword.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/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®