[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c959833a-9074-47ed-b9dd-e7e276cee0f9@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 11:10:28 +0200
From: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
Cc: Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
Youssef Esmat <youssefesmat@...gle.com>, David Vernet <void@...ifault.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, "Paul E . McKenney"
<paulmck@...nel.org>, joseph.salisbury@...onical.com,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@...tannapisa.it>,
Vineeth Pillai <vineeth@...byteword.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/15] sched/deadline: Make start_dl_timer callers more
robust
On 3/13/24 02:24, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> For whatever reason, if start_dl_timer() returned 0 during replenish (it
> did not start a new timer), then do not marked dl_defer_armed, because
> we never really armed.
>
> Further, we need to cancel any old timers,
>
> This is similar to what dl_check_constrained_dl() does.
>
> Add some guardrails for such situations.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Makes sense, added as part of the defer patch.
-- Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists