From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Peng Liu <iwtbavbm@gmail.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
bristot@redhat.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
raistlin@linux.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: Fix sched_dl_global_validate()
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 11:42:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200916094203.GA6652@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200915152048.GA25835@iZj6chx1xj0e0buvshuecpZ>
Hi,
On 15/09/20 23:20, Peng Liu wrote:
> When user changes sched_rt_{runtime, period}_us, then
>
> sched_rt_handler()
> --> sched_dl_bandwidth_validate()
> {
> new_bw = global_rt_runtime()/global_rt_period();
>
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> dl_b = dl_bw_of(cpu);
> if (new_bw < dl_b->total_bw)
> ret = -EBUSY;
> }
> }
>
> Under CONFIG_SMP, dl_bw is per root domain , but not per CPU,
> dl_b->total_bw is the allocated bandwidth of the whole root domain.
> we should compare dl_b->total_bw against cpus*new_bw, where 'cpus'
> is the number of CPUs of the root domain.
Hummm, I think you are right. Guess nobody played a lot with changing
global values. :-/
> Also, below annotation(in kernel/sched/sched.h) implied implementation
> only appeared in SCHED_DEADLINE v2[1], then deadline scheduler kept
> evolving till got merged(v9), but the annotation remains unchanged,
> meaningless and misleading, correct it.
>
> * With respect to SMP, the bandwidth is given on a per-CPU basis,
> * meaning that:
> * - dl_bw (< 100%) is the bandwidth of the system (group) on each CPU;
> * - dl_total_bw array contains, in the i-eth element, the currently
> * allocated bandwidth on the i-eth CPU.
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/2/28/119
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Liu <iwtbavbm@gmail.com>
> ---
> In fact, I'm not 100% sure that's a bug, since it's too 'obvious' and
> not newly introduced code.
>
> Also, the introduced #ifdef...#endif pairs look ugly, I have no idea
> how to eliminate them. Ideas and comments are welcome. Thanks.
Can't we just use dl_bw_cpus() ?
Thanks,
Juri
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-16 9:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-15 15:20 [PATCH] sched/deadline: Fix sched_dl_global_validate() Peng Liu
2020-09-16 9:42 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2020-09-16 15:39 ` Peng Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200916094203.GA6652@localhost.localdomain \
--to=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=iwtbavbm@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=raistlin@linux.it \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.