[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5620BAA5.5010807@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 09:51:49 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>, 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
Hi,
On 16/10/15 09:03, Luca Abeni wrote:
> 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.
>
Thanks!
> 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.
>
Yeah, it seems we need that fix too.
Best,
- 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