[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200108130210.GF2844@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 14:02:10 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: chenying <chen.ying153@....com.cn>, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xue.zhihong@....com.cn,
wang.yi59@....com.cn, jiang.xuexin@....com.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix share rt runtime with offline rq
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:40:30AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > kernel/sched/rt.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > index a532558..d20dc86 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
> > @@ -648,8 +648,12 @@ static void do_balance_runtime(struct rt_rq *rt_rq)
> > rt_period = ktime_to_ns(rt_b->rt_period);
> > for_each_cpu(i, rd->span) {
> > struct rt_rq *iter = sched_rt_period_rt_rq(rt_b, i);
> > + struct rq *rq = rq_of_rt_rq(iter);
> > s64 diff;
> >
> > + if (!rq->online)
> > + continue;
> > +
>
> I think this might be papering over the real issue. Perhaps
> rq_offline_rt() needs to be called for CPUs not being brought online?
Yeah, very much that. Something like the below perhaps. But I really
want to rip out the whole RT_CGROUP_SCHED stuff so we can start over.
Perhaps the poster can explain what he's using this stuff for?
---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
index 4043abe45459..96a0320cfadb 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
@@ -208,7 +208,13 @@ int alloc_rt_sched_group(struct task_group *tg, struct task_group *parent)
goto err_free_rq;
init_rt_rq(rt_rq);
+
+ cpus_read_lock();
rt_rq->rt_runtime = tg->rt_bandwidth.rt_runtime;
+ if (!cpu_online(i))
+ rt_rq->rt_runtime = RUNTIME_INF;
+ cpus_read_unlock();
+
init_tg_rt_entry(tg, rt_rq, rt_se, i, parent->rt_se[i]);
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists