From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756651Ab0KJUVe (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:21:34 -0500 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([134.117.69.58]:60725 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756404Ab0KJUVc convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:21:32 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 05/22] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE policy implementation From: Peter Zijlstra To: Raistlin Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt , Chris Friesen , oleg@redhat.com, Frederic Weisbecker , Darren Hart , Johan Eker , "p.faure" , linux-kernel , Claudio Scordino , michael trimarchi , Fabio Checconi , Tommaso Cucinotta , Juri Lelli , Nicola Manica , Luca Abeni , Dhaval Giani , Harald Gustafsson , paulmck In-Reply-To: <1288333814.8661.146.camel@Palantir> References: <1288333128.8661.137.camel@Palantir> <1288333814.8661.146.camel@Palantir> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:21:18 +0100 Message-ID: <1289420478.2084.54.camel@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 08:30 +0200, Raistlin wrote: > +static void update_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se) > +{ > + struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se); > + struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq); > + > + /* > + * The arrival of a new instance needs special treatment, i.e., > + * the actual scheduling parameters have to be "renewed". > + */ > + if (dl_se->dl_new) { > + setup_new_dl_entity(dl_se); > + return; > + } > + > + if (dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, rq->clock) || > + dl_entity_overflow(dl_se, rq->clock)) { > + dl_se->deadline = rq->clock + dl_se->dl_deadline; > + dl_se->runtime = dl_se->dl_runtime; > + } > +} Can't we loose runtime deficit this way?