[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170421115907.4044665a@nowhere>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 11:59:07 +0200
From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...up.it>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: fix switching to -deadline
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:47:29 +0100
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com> wrote:
[...]
> > > > *dl_se, update_dl_entity(dl_se, pi_se);
> > > > else if (flags & ENQUEUE_REPLENISH)
> > > > replenish_dl_entity(dl_se, pi_se);
> > > > + else if ((flags & ENQUEUE_RESTORE) &&
> > >
> > > Not sure I understand how this works. AFAICT we are doing
> > > __sched_setscheduler() when we want to catch the case of a new
> > > dl_entity (SCHED_{OTHER,FIFO} -> SCHED_DEADLINE}, but queue_flags
> > > (which are passed to enqueue_task()) don't seem to have
> > > ENQUEUE_RESTORE set?
> >
> > I was under the impression sched_setscheduler() sets
> > ENQUEUE_RESTORE...
>
> Oh, I think it works "by coincidence", as ENQUEUE_RESTORE ==
> DEQUEUE_SAVE == 0x02 ? :)
Not sure if this is a conincidence... By looking at the comments in
sched/sched.h I got the impression the two values match by design (and
__sched_setscheduler() is using this property to simplify the code :)
Luca
Powered by blists - more mailing lists