[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f9a637ac-2146-d430-cffc-f8ec956abfff@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2022 17:09:57 +0800
From: shangxiaojing <shangxiaojing@...wei.com>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
CC: <mingo@...hat.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<juri.lelli@...hat.com>, <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
<dietmar.eggemann@....com>, <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
<bsegall@...gle.com>, <mgorman@...e.de>, <vschneid@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] sched/deadline: Add start_new_instance helper
On 2022/8/26 16:57, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 8/26/22 09:40, shangxiaojing wrote:
>>> again, this is not a good function name. Maybe, dl_replenish_new_period() ?
>> right, i have thought like replenish_new_instance, but when i'm making
>> patch, i was worried that "replenish" is only for ENQUEUE_REPLENISH.
> I see, but that is a flag, not the action.
>
>> what about dl_start_new_period? which means a new deadline will be set, rather than
> The thing it is doing is replenishing...
>
>> dl_se->deadline += pi_of(dl_se)->dl_period;
>>
>> in replenish_dl_entity.
> that is why I added "new_period".... so replenish_dl_new_period() to keep the consistency.
ok, i'll use replenish_dl_new_period in v2.
>>>> +static inline void start_new_instance(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct rq *rq)
>>>>
>>>> +{
>>>> + /* for non-boosted task, pi_of(dl_se) == dl_se */
>>>> + dl_se->deadline = rq_clock(rq) + pi_of(dl_se)->dl_deadline;
>>>> + dl_se->runtime = pi_of(dl_se)->dl_runtime;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>> -- Daniel
> -- Daniel
Thanks,
Shang XiaoJing
Powered by blists - more mailing lists