From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752373AbcBWPut (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:50:49 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:38300 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751241AbcBWPus (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:50:48 -0500 Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:51:45 +0000 From: Juri Lelli To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: luca abeni , rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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: <20160223155145.GM27380@e106622-lin> 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> <20160210134848.12e6a6f8@utopia> <20160210134240.GB11415@e106622-lin> <20160223154823.GV6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160223154823.GV6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 23/02/16 16:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:42:40PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > > > > index 9503d59..0ee0ec2 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > > > > @@ -2432,7 +2432,7 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p, > > > > int policy, u64 new_bw = dl_policy(policy) ? to_ratio(period, > > > > runtime) : 0; int cpus, err = -1; > > > > > > > > - if (new_bw == p->dl.dl_bw) > > > > + if (task_has_dl_policy(p) && new_bw == p->dl.dl_bw) > > > > return 0; > > > > > > This hunk actually fixes issue 2) mentioned above, so I think it should > > > be committed in a short time (independently from the rest of the > > > patch). And maybe is a good candidate for backporting to stable kernels? > > > > > > > Yes, this is a sensible fix per se. I can split it and send it > > separately. > > Did you ever send that? > No, I didn't. Will do ASAP. Thanks, - Juri