All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>, xlpang@redhat.com
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	luca.abeni@unitn.it
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/deadline: remove useless param from setup_new_dl_entity
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:58:55 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <57918BEF.2090400@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160721144614.GJ30584@e106622-lin>

On 2016/07/21 at 22:46, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 21/07/16 15:36, Juri Lelli wrote:
>> On 21/07/16 15:21, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 18/07/16 21:37, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>>> On 2016/07/18 at 21:04, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>>>> On 15/07/16 18:39, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016/07/13 at 18:58, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since this is only called for queued cases now, there is no need to
>>>>>> check boosted stuff here. As enqueue_task(ENQUEUE_REPLENISH)
>>>>>> is called before check_class_changed() in rt_mutex_setprio().
>>>>>>
>>>>> But we don't do the same in setscheduler, right?
>>>> If p is deadline PI-boosted, setscheduler() won't call change its sched_class.
>>>> If p isn't deadline PI-boosted, then pi_task is NULL.
>>>>
>>>> So, I think the added code won't hit. Did I miss something?
>>>>
>>> No, I think you are right.
>>>
>> Oh, and we need to filter the call after rt_mutex_setprio has
>> already issued a replenishment.
>>
> Does something like this on top of v4 make sense?
>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/deadline.c | 22 +++++++---------------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index dc56f5be0112..6f05ac78711c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -350,9 +350,8 @@ static inline void setup_new_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);
> -	struct task_struct *pi_task;
> -	struct sched_dl_entity *pi_se = dl_se;
>  
> +	WARN_ON(dl_se->dl_boosted);
>  	WARN_ON(dl_time_before(rq_clock(rq), dl_se->deadline));
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -364,21 +363,12 @@ static inline void setup_new_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>  		return;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Use the scheduling parameters of the top pi-waiter task,
> -	 * if we have one from which we can inherit a deadline.
> -	 */
> -	if (dl_se->dl_boosted &&
> -	    (pi_task = rt_mutex_get_top_task(dl_task_of(dl_se))) &&
> -	    dl_prio(pi_task->normal_prio))
> -		pi_se = &pi_task->dl;
> -
> -	/*
>  	 * We use the regular wall clock time to set deadlines in the
>  	 * future; in fact, we must consider execution overheads (time
>  	 * spent on hardirq context, etc.).
>  	 */
> -	dl_se->deadline = rq_clock(rq) + pi_se->dl_deadline;
> -	dl_se->runtime = pi_se->dl_runtime;
> +	dl_se->deadline = rq_clock(rq) + dl_se->dl_deadline;
> +	dl_se->runtime = dl_se->dl_runtime;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -1734,9 +1724,11 @@ static void switched_to_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>  	if (task_on_rq_queued(p)) {
>  		/*
>  		 * If p is not queued we will update its parameters at next
> -		 * wakeup.
> +		 * wakeup. If p is dl_boosted we already updated its params in
> +		 * rt_mutex_setprio()->enqueue_task(..., ENQUEUE_REPLENISH).
>  		 */
> -		if (dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline, rq_clock(rq)))
> +		if (dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline, rq_clock(rq)) &&
> +				!p->dl.dl_boosted)

Hi Juri,

It looks good to me, only one question:
For on_rq boosted to deadline, p->dl.deadline has been updated after rq_lock(rq) by
rt_mutex_setprio()->enqueue_task(..., ENQUEUE_REPLENISH) and no rq clock update
afterwards, so dl_time_before() will be false, seems p->dl.dl_boosted check is needless.

Regards,
Xunlei

>  			setup_new_dl_entity(&p->dl);
>  
>  		if (rq->curr != p) {

  reply	other threads:[~2016-07-22  2:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-07-13 10:58 [PATCH v4] sched/deadline: remove useless param from setup_new_dl_entity Juri Lelli
2016-07-15 10:39 ` Xunlei Pang
2016-07-18 13:04   ` Juri Lelli
2016-07-18 13:37     ` Xunlei Pang
2016-07-21 14:21       ` Juri Lelli
2016-07-21 14:36         ` Juri Lelli
2016-07-21 14:46           ` Juri Lelli
2016-07-22  2:58             ` Xunlei Pang [this message]
2016-08-05 10:13               ` Juri Lelli

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=57918BEF.2090400@redhat.com \
    --to=xpang@redhat.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luca.abeni@unitn.it \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=xlpang@redhat.com \
    /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.