[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190726153002.5e49c666@sweethome>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 15:30:02 +0200
From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@....com>,
Qais Yousef <Qais.Yousef@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched/deadline: Fix double accounting of rq/running
bw in push_dl_task()
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:27:52 +0100
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
[...]
> @@ -2121,17 +2121,13 @@ static int push_dl_task(struct rq *rq)
> }
>
> deactivate_task(rq, next_task, 0);
> - sub_running_bw(&next_task->dl, &rq->dl);
> - sub_rq_bw(&next_task->dl, &rq->dl);
> set_task_cpu(next_task, later_rq->cpu);
> - add_rq_bw(&next_task->dl, &later_rq->dl);
>
> /*
> * Update the later_rq clock here, because the clock is used
> * by the cpufreq_update_util() inside __add_running_bw().
> */
> update_rq_clock(later_rq);
> - add_running_bw(&next_task->dl, &later_rq->dl);
Looking at the code again and thinking a little bit more about this
issue, I suspect a similar change is needed in pull_dl_task() too, no?
Luca
Powered by blists - more mailing lists