From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_NEOMUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5AC9C43381 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:20:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B251B2075C for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:20:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726720AbfCMQU5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:20:57 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:60116 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725876AbfCMQU5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Mar 2019 12:20:57 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8701880D; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:20:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e110439-lin (e110439-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.194.43]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9214C3F71D; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 09:20:53 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 16:20:51 +0000 From: Patrick Bellasi To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Vincent Guittot , Viresh Kumar , Paul Turner , Quentin Perret , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , Steve Muckle , Suren Baghdasaryan Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 02/15] sched/core: uclamp: Enforce last task UCLAMP_MAX Message-ID: <20190313162051.djiu5dwc5ahp5p5p@e110439-lin> References: <20190208100554.32196-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190208100554.32196-3-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190313141008.GF5922@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190313141008.GF5922@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 13-Mar 15:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:05:41AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > +uclamp_idle_value(struct rq *rq, unsigned int clamp_id, unsigned int clamp_value) > > +{ > > + /* > > + * Avoid blocked utilization pushing up the frequency when we go > > + * idle (which drops the max-clamp) by retaining the last known > > + * max-clamp. > > + */ > > + if (clamp_id == UCLAMP_MAX) { > > + rq->uclamp_flags |= UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE; > > + return clamp_value; > > + } > > + > > + return uclamp_none(UCLAMP_MIN); > > That's a very complicated way or writing: return 0, right? In my mind it's just a simple way to hardcode values in just one place. In the current implementation uclamp_none(UCLAMP_MIN) is 0 and the compiler is not in trubles to inline a 0 there. Is it really so disgusting ? -- #include Patrick Bellasi