[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161118135554.GJ3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:55:54 +0100
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>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:06:33PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> @@ -498,6 +514,8 @@ 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 (dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, rq_clock(rq)) ||
> dl_entity_overflow(dl_se, pi_se, rq_clock(rq))) {
> dl_se->deadline = rq_clock(rq) + pi_se->dl_deadline;
> @@ -947,14 +965,19 @@ static void enqueue_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> return;
> }
>
> + if (p->on_rq == TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING)
> + add_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> +
> /*
> * If p is throttled, we do nothing. In fact, if it exhausted
> * its budget it needs a replenishment and, since it now is on
> * its rq, the bandwidth timer callback (which clearly has not
> * run yet) will take care of this.
> */
> - if (p->dl.dl_throttled && !(flags & ENQUEUE_REPLENISH))
> + if (p->dl.dl_throttled && !(flags & ENQUEUE_REPLENISH)) {
> + add_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> return;
> + }
>
> enqueue_dl_entity(&p->dl, pi_se, flags);
>
I realize the enqueue path is a bit of a maze, but this hurts my head.
Isn't there anything we can do to streamline this a bit?
Maybe move the add_running_bw() from update_dl_entity() to the
ENQUEUE_WAKEUP branch in enqueue_dl_entity()? Because that's what you
really want, isn't it? Its not actually related to recomputing the
absolute deadline.
> @@ -972,6 +995,12 @@ static void dequeue_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> {
> update_curr_dl(rq);
> __dequeue_task_dl(rq, p, flags);
> +
> + if (p->on_rq == TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING)
> + sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> +
> + if (flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP)
> + sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> }
We could look at adding more enqueue/dequeue flags to streamline this a
bit, bit lets not do that now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists