Re: [PATCH v5] sched/deadline: fix earliest_dl.next logic

[Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>]

Hi,

On 03/12/15 16:59, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2015-12-03 16:37 GMT+08:00 Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 12/03/2015 03:25 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>
> >>> @@ -202,16 +197,18 @@ static void dequeue_pushable_dl_task(struct rq *rq,
> >>> struct task_struct *p)
> >>>
> >>>                  next_node = rb_next(&p->pushable_dl_tasks);
> >>>                  dl_rq->pushable_dl_tasks_leftmost = next_node;
> >>> +               if (next_node)
> >>> +                       dl_rq->earliest_dl.next = rb_entry(next_node,
> >>> +                            struct task_struct,
> >>> pushable_dl_tasks)->dl.deadline;
> >>
> >>
> >> Juri mentioned "updated leftmost", I'm not sure if it means that:
> >>
> >> @@ -195,6 +195,9 @@ static void dequeue_pushable_dl_task(struct rq
> >> *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> >>
> >>                  next_node = rb_next(&p->pushable_dl_tasks);
> >>                  dl_rq->pushable_dl_tasks_leftmost = next_node;
> >> +               if (dl_rq->pushable_dl_tasks_leftmost)
> >> +                       dl_rq->earliest_dl.next =
> >> rb_entry(dl_rq->pushable_dl_tasks_leftmost,
> >> +                               struct task_struct,
> >> pushable_dl_tasks)->dl.deadline;
> >>          }
> >
> > This is basically the same thing I tested (I just used "next_node" instead
> > of "dl_rq->pushable_dl_tasks_leftmost" because the name is shorter), so I
> > think it should work.
> 
> Yeah, the same, what I want to know is Juri's choice. Ping Juri, :-)
> 

IMHO, Luca's solution looks shorter/better :-).

Thanks,

- Juri