On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 04:20:51PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
On 13-Mar 15:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 10:05:41AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
quoted
+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 ?
Not disguisting per se, just complicated. It had me go back and check
wth uclamp_none() did again.