[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160617162837.GQ5981@e106622-lin>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:28:37 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, luca.abeni@...tn.it
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: remove useless param from
setup_new_dl_entity
On 17/06/16 09:49, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:48:41 +0100
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com> wrote:
>
> > setup_new_dl_entity() takes two parameters, but it only actually uses
> > one of them to setup a new dl_entity.
> >
>
> Actually this patch is making it so that setup_new_dl_entity() only
> uses one of the parameters. Can you note why that change happened.
> Because this change log implies that the second parameter wasn't used
> before this patch, and that is incorrect.
>
True, but we were practically already using the same parameter, under a
different name though, after
2f9f3fdc928 "sched/deadline: Remove dl_new from struct sched_dl_entity"
as we currently do:
setup_new_dl_entity(&p->dl, &p->dl)
> This patch reverts part of the change done in
> commit 2d3d891d334 "sched/deadline: Add SCHED_DEADLINE inheritance
> logic"
>
Before Luca's change we were doing
setup_new_dl_entity(dl_se, pi_se)
in update_dl_entity() for a dl_se->new entity. So, I guess the question
is actually why we wanted to use pi_se's parameters (the potential PI
donor) for setting up a new entity? Maybe we broke the situation where a
task is currently boosted by a DEADLINE waiter and we swich the holder
to DEADLINE?
> It would be nice to have the reason in the change log.
>
Thanks a lot for pointing out what might be more than inaccuracy in the
changelog.
Best,
- Juri
>
> > Remove the second, useless, parameter.
> >
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> > Cc: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
> > Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/deadline.c | 9 ++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > index fcb7f0217ff4..5229788a4765 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > @@ -346,8 +346,7 @@ static void check_preempt_curr_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
> > * one, and to (try to!) reconcile itself with its own scheduling
> > * parameters.
> > */
> > -static inline void setup_new_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se,
> > - struct sched_dl_entity *pi_se)
> > +static inline void setup_new_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);
> > @@ -367,8 +366,8 @@ static inline void setup_new_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se,
> > * future; in fact, we must consider execution overheads (time
> > * spent on hardirq context, etc.).
> > */
> > - dl_se->deadline = rq_clock(rq) + pi_se->dl_deadline;
> > - dl_se->runtime = pi_se->dl_runtime;
> > + dl_se->deadline = rq_clock(rq) + dl_se->dl_deadline;
> > + dl_se->runtime = dl_se->dl_runtime;
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -1721,7 +1720,7 @@ static void switched_from_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> > static void switched_to_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > if (dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline, rq_clock(rq)))
> > - setup_new_dl_entity(&p->dl, &p->dl);
> > + setup_new_dl_entity(&p->dl);
> >
> > if (task_on_rq_queued(p) && rq->curr != p) {
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists