[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aFF6eYzMahzQ9sxE@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 16:23:53 +0200
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Kuyo Chang <kuyo.chang@...iatek.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...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>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
jstultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/deadline: Fix fair_server runtime calculation
formula
On 17/06/25 16:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 02:33:15PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
...
> > To me it looks like we want this (no scaling) for fair_server (and
> > possibly scx_server?) as for them we are only looking into a 'fixed
> > time' type of isolation. Full fledged servers (hierarchical scheduling)
> > maybe have it configurable, or enabled by default as a start (as we have
> > it today).
>
> Right. Then we should write the above like:
>
> scaled_delta_exec = delta_exec;
> if (!dl_se->dl_server)
> scaled_delta_exec = dl_scaled_delta_exec(rq, dl_se, delta_exec);
>
> and let any later server users add bits on if they want more options.
Works for me. Looks cleaner also.
Kuyo, can you please update your patch then?
Thanks,
Juri
Powered by blists - more mailing lists