[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5620AF64.4050208@unitn.it>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 10:03:48 +0200
From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix migration of SCHED_DEADLINE tasks
On 10/15/2015 06:40 PM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 15/10/15 12:09, Luca Abeni wrote:
>> Commit 9d5142624256 ("sched/deadline: Reduce rq lock contention by
>> eliminating locking of non-feasible target") broke select_task_rq_dl()
[...]
>> - dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline,
>> - cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr))
>> + (dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline,
>> + cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr) ||
>> + (cpu_rq(target)->dl.earliest_dl.curr == 0)))
>
> Can't we actually use dl.dl_nr_running here and below, so
> that we won't incur any wraparound problem?
Ok, I tested the patch with dl.dl_nr_running and if works for me...
I am going to send the updated patch in few minutes.
BTW, should we also use "dl_rq->dl_nr_running == 0" instead of
"dl_rq->earliest_dl.curr == 0" in inc_dl_deadline(), and remove the
comment from init_dl_rq()? If you think it is a good idea, I'll test this
additional change and send a patch in next week.
Thanks,
Luca
--
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