[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210621090312.GA193194@e120877-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 10:03:13 +0100
From: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/rt: Fix RT utilization tracking during policy
change
[...]
> > /*
> > - * If we are already running, then there's nothing
> > - * that needs to be done. But if we are not running
> > - * we may need to preempt the current running task.
> > - * If that current running task is also an RT task
> > + * If we are not running we may need to preempt the current
> > + * running task. If that current running task is also an RT task
> > * then see if we can move to another run queue.
> > */
> > if (task_on_rq_queued(p) && rq->curr != p) {
> > @@ -2355,6 +2353,13 @@ static void switched_to_rt(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> > if (p->prio < rq->curr->prio && cpu_online(cpu_of(rq)))
> > resched_curr(rq);
> > }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we are running, update the avg_rt tracking, as the running time
> > + * will now on be accounted into the latter.
> > + */
> > + if (task_current(rq, p))
>
> task_current(rq,p) equals the "rq->curr != p" above. Having 2
> different ways to get the same value in the function is a bit
> confusing.
>
> And call it once
>
> Otherwise, the fix looks good to me
I can change it to something like:
if (task_current(rq, p)) {
update_rt_rq_load_avg()
return;
}
if (task_on_rq_queued(p) {
...
if (p->prio ...)
resched_curr(rq);
}
?
>
> > + update_rt_rq_load_avg(rq_clock_pelt(rq), rq, 0);
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists