[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160223155145.GM27380@e106622-lin>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:51:45 +0000
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, wanpeng.li@...mail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted
bandwidth
On 23/02/16 16:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:42:40PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > index 9503d59..0ee0ec2 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > @@ -2432,7 +2432,7 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p,
> > > > int policy, u64 new_bw = dl_policy(policy) ? to_ratio(period,
> > > > runtime) : 0; int cpus, err = -1;
> > > >
> > > > - if (new_bw == p->dl.dl_bw)
> > > > + if (task_has_dl_policy(p) && new_bw == p->dl.dl_bw)
> > > > return 0;
> > >
> > > This hunk actually fixes issue 2) mentioned above, so I think it should
> > > be committed in a short time (independently from the rest of the
> > > patch). And maybe is a good candidate for backporting to stable kernels?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, this is a sensible fix per se. I can split it and send it
> > separately.
>
> Did you ever send that?
>
No, I didn't. Will do ASAP.
Thanks,
- Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists