[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1334237738.23924.334.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:35:38 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, cfriesen@...tel.com,
oleg@...hat.com, fweisbec@...il.com, darren@...art.com,
johan.eker@...csson.com, p.faure@...tech.ch,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, claudio@...dence.eu.com,
michael@...rulasolutions.com, fcheccon@...per.es
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE push and pull logic
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 20:56 +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> >> if (2 == dl_nr_migratory + dl_nr_total)
> >> rq was not overloaded;
> >>
> >> after enqueuing a deadline task that is not migratory,
> >
> > Now rq would be overloaded because:
> >
> > dl_nr_migratory + dl_nr_total == 3
> >
>
> Which is the current task, and where?
More riddles?
The current task is the one executing on the CPU.
-- Steve
>
> >
> >>
> >> if (current task is not preempted)
> >> rq remains not overloaded;
> >
> > s/not//
> >
> >>
> >> else if (current task is not pushed out) {
> >> if (rq is not overloaded)
> >> maintenance of overloaded is __corrupted__;
> >> }
> >>
> >> btw, same behavior in RTS?
> >
> > I still don't understand what you are saying.
> >
> > I can see your scenario happening with the change you are suggesting
> > though.
> >
> > -- Steve
> >
> >
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists