[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160405124242.GX3430@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:42:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/7] Improve the tracking of active utilisation
On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 05:12:29PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> @@ -526,7 +575,18 @@ static void update_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se,
> struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se);
> struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq);
>
> - add_running_bw(dl_se, dl_rq);
> + /*
> + * If the "inactive timer" is still active, stop it and leave
> + * the active utilisation unchanged.
> + * Otherwise, increase the active utilisation.
> + * If the timer cannot be cancelled, inactive_task_timer() will
> + * find the task state as TASK_RUNNING, and will do nothing, so
> + * we are still safe.
> + */
> + if (hrtimer_active(&dl_se->inactive_timer))
> + hrtimer_try_to_cancel(&dl_se->inactive_timer);
_try_, what happens if that fails?
> + else
> + add_running_bw(dl_se, dl_rq);
>
> if (dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, rq_clock(rq)) ||
> dl_entity_overflow(dl_se, pi_se, rq_clock(rq))) {
Powered by blists - more mailing lists