On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 05:56:09PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> +static inline void uclamp_cpu_get(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int 
> clamp_id)
> +{
> +     struct uclamp_cpu *uc_cpu = &cpu_rq(cpu)->uclamp[clamp_id];
> +     int clamp_value;
> +     int group_id;
> +
> +     /* Get task's specific clamp value */
> +     clamp_value = p->uclamp[clamp_id].value;
> +     group_id = p->uclamp[clamp_id].group_id;
> +
> +     /* No task specific clamp values: nothing to do */
> +     if (group_id == UCLAMP_NONE)
> +             return;
> +
> +     /* Increment the current group_id */

That I think qualifies being called a bad comment.

> +     uc_cpu->group[group_id].tasks += 1;
> +
> +     /* Mark task as enqueued for this clamp index */
> +     p->uclamp_group_id[clamp_id] = group_id;

Why exactly do we need this? we got group_id from @p in the first place.

I suspect this is because when we update p->uclamp[], we don't update
this active value (when needed), is that worth it?

> +     /*
> +      * If this is the new max utilization clamp value, then we can update
> +      * straight away the CPU clamp value. Otherwise, the current CPU clamp
> +      * value is still valid and we are done.
> +      */
> +     if (uc_cpu->value < clamp_value)
> +             uc_cpu->value = clamp_value;
> +}

Reply via email to