[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <97c06d07-bb6a-e8b5-b230-390edd8bcfbe@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:21:03 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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 2/2] sched: Don't report SCHED_FLAG_SUGOV in
sched_getattr()
On 28/07/2021 14:36, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 28/07/21 10:39, Quentin Perret wrote:
>> On Wednesday 28 Jul 2021 at 11:12:03 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
>>> Maybe we can do this in the previous patch so that it's kept confined to
>>> deadline bits?
>>
>> That works too, it just felt like this could happen again if we start
>> using non-standard flags outside of deadline for any reason at some
>> point in the future. But no strong opinion really.
>
> Yeah, I also see this point. :)
>
> So no prob with me to keep it in core.c as you do here.
>
> Best,
> Juri
>
I would vote for not exporting SCHED_FLAG_SUGOV from __getparam_dl() in
patch 1/2 to underpin the idea that this flag is a hack.
@ -2759,7 +2759,7 @@ void __getparam_dl(struct task_struct *p, struct
sched_attr *attr)
attr->sched_deadline = dl_se->dl_deadline;
attr->sched_period = dl_se->dl_period;
attr->sched_flags &= ~SCHED_DL_FLAGS;
- attr->sched_flags |= dl_se->flags;
+ attr->sched_flags |= dl_se->flags & ~SCHED_FLAG_SUGOV;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists