[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161102034128.4c647b53@utopia>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 03:41:28 +0100
From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 2/6] Improve the tracking of active utilisation
On Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:06:34 +0200
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it> wrote:
[...]
> @@ -514,7 +556,20 @@ 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 (hrtimer_is_queued(&dl_se->inactive_timer)) {
> + hrtimer_try_to_cancel(&dl_se->inactive_timer);
Replying to myself here: after re-readling this code again, I now think that
if hrtimer_try_to_cancel() does not fail I need a put_task_struct() to
compensate for the one that should happen in the inactive timer handler
and I just cancelled...
I do not know how I previously missed this (or maybe I just managed to
confuse myself now :)
I will check this in next week.
Luca
Powered by blists - more mailing lists