[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F9577CF.2020400@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:39:59 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
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, fchecconi@...il.com,
tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it, nicola.manica@...i.unitn.it,
luca.abeni@...tn.it, dhaval.giani@...il.com, hgu1972@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@...ux.it,
insop.song@...csson.com, liming.wang@...driver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE policy implementation.
On 04/23/2012 04:35 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 09:14 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> +static void init_dl_task_timer(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>> +{
>> + struct hrtimer *timer =&dl_se->dl_timer;
>> +
>> + if (hrtimer_active(timer)) {
>> + hrtimer_try_to_cancel(timer);
>> + return;
>> + }
>
> Same question I guess, how can it be active here? Also, just letting it
> run doesn't seem like the best way out..
>
Probably s/hrtimer_try_to_cancel/hrtimer_cancel is better.
>> +
>> + hrtimer_init(timer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
>> + timer->function = dl_task_timer;
>> + timer->irqsafe = 1;
>> +}
Thanks,
- Juri
--
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