[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <17c8a9b5-b63a-1a1a-f11b-5e00c2a6ad34@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 16:15:01 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/2] sched/cpupri: Add CPUPRI_HIGHER
On 14/10/2020 21:54, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Add CPUPRI_HIGHER above the RT99 priority to denote the CPU is in use
> by higher priority tasks (specifically deadline).
sugov:X already triggers this now on our !fast-switching devices running
schedutil.
> XXX: we should probably drive PUSH-PULL from cpupri, that would
> automagically result in an RT-PUSH when DL sets cpupri to CPUPRI_HIGHER.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
[...]
> @@ -54,6 +56,10 @@ static int convert_prio(int prio)
The BUG_ON could be tightened:
- BUG_ON(prio >= MAX_PRIO);
+ BUG_ON(prio > MAX_RT_PRIO);
> case MAX_RT_PRIO-1:
> cpupri = CPUPRI_NORMAL; /* 0 */
> break;
> +
> + case MAX_RT_PRIO:
> + cpupri = CPUPRI_HIGHER; /* 100 */
> + break;
> }
>
> return cpupri;
Just saw that the comment for cpupri_set() needs changing:
@@ -205,7 +208,7 @@ int cpupri_find_fitness(struct cpupri *cp, struct
task_struct *p,
* cpupri_set - update the CPU priority setting
* @cp: The cpupri context
* @cpu: The target CPU
- * @newpri: The priority (INVALID-RT99) to assign to this CPU
+ * @newpri: The priority (INVALID-RT1-RT99-NORMAL-HIGHER) to assign to
this CPU
Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists