From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751738AbcBKVse (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:48:34 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f42.google.com ([74.125.82.42]:34112 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751495AbcBKVsd (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:48:33 -0500
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:48:19 +0100
From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        wanpeng.li@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted
 bandwidth
Message-ID: <20160211224819.6ff6f853@luca-1225C>
In-Reply-To: <20160211092546.5b607147@gandalf.local.home>
References: <1454935531-7541-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com>
	<1454935531-7541-2-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com>
	<20160210113258.GX11415@e106622-lin>
	<20160210093702.10c655be@gandalf.local.home>
	<20160210162748.GI11415@e106622-lin>
	<20160211121257.GL11415@e106622-lin>
	<20160211132254.1a369fe9@utopia>
	<20160211122754.GN11415@e106622-lin>
	<20160211134018.6b15fd68@utopia>
	<20160211124959.GO11415@e106622-lin>
	<20160211140545.3c9e6e41@utopia>
	<20160211092546.5b607147@gandalf.local.home>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:25:46 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:05:45 +0100
> luca abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it> wrote:
> 
>   
> > Well, I never used the rq utilization to re-build the root_domain
> > utilization (and I never played with root domains too much... :)...
> > So, I do not really know. Maybe the code should do:
> > 	raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > 	raw_spin_lock(&cpu_rq(cpu)->lock);
> 
> Of course you want to use double_rq_lock() here instead.
Right... Of course I always miss something obvious ;-)


			Luca