[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <213a5bb3-208a-b8dc-0c80-175ceb4ae1dd@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:00:58 +0100
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>
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()
On 7/26/19 2:30 PM, luca abeni wrote:
> 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?
The code looks the same. Let me try to test it. I will add it in v2 then.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists