On 08-Sep 20:02, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Patrick Bellasi
[off-list ref] wrote:

[...]

quoted

+  cpu.util.min.effective
+        A read-only single value file which exists on non-root cgroups and
+        reports minimum utilization clamp value currently enforced on a task
+        group.
+
+        The actual minimum utilization in the range [0, 1023].
+
+        This value can be lower then cpu.util.min in case a parent cgroup
+        is enforcing a more restrictive clamping on minimum utilization.

IMHO if cpu.util.min=0 means "no restrictions" on UCLAMP_MIN then
calling parent's lower cpu.util.min value "more restrictive clamping"
is confusing. I would suggest to rephrase this to smth like "...in
case a parent cgroup requires lower cpu.util.min clamping."

Right, it's slightly confusing... still I would like to call out that
a parent group can enforce something on its children. What about:

   "... a parent cgroup allows only smaller minimum utilization values."

Is that less confusing ?

Otherwise I think your proposal could work too.

[...]

quoted

 #ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK_GROUP
+/**
+ * cpu_util_update_hier: propagete effective clamp down the hierarchy

typo: propagate

+1

[...]

quoted

+                * Skip the whole subtrees if the current effective clamp is
+                * alredy matching the TG's clamp value.

typo: already

+1


Cheers,
Patrick

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi