public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: remove useless param from setup_new_dl_entity
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 22:36:12 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160617223612.2c8bf505@utopia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160617221518.75427592@utopia>

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 22:15:18 +0200
luca abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:28:37 +0100
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > True, but we were practically already using the same parameter, under a
> > different name though, after
> > 
> > 2f9f3fdc928 "sched/deadline: Remove dl_new from struct sched_dl_entity"
> > 
> > as we currently do:
> > 
> >   setup_new_dl_entity(&p->dl, &p->dl)
> >   
> > > This patch reverts part of the change done in
> > > commit 2d3d891d334 "sched/deadline: Add SCHED_DEADLINE inheritance
> > > logic"
> > >     
> > 
> > Before Luca's change we were doing
> > 
> >  setup_new_dl_entity(dl_se, pi_se)
> > 
> > in update_dl_entity() for a dl_se->new entity. So, I guess the question
> > is actually why we wanted to use pi_se's parameters (the potential PI
> > donor) for setting up a new entity?  
> That's a good question :)
> 
> > Maybe we broke the situation where a
> > task is currently boosted by a DEADLINE waiter and we swich the holder
> > to DEADLINE?  
> I remember I tested this setup (using linaro's version of rt-app), and
> it seemed to work correctly...
> 
> Re-reading the code now, I actually wonder why my patch did not break
> inheritance in this situation...
Ok; I think I know why inheritance is not broken (or, at least, it does
not appear to be broken when testing it with rt-app):
- When a -deadline task blocks on a mutex that is held by a SCHED_OTHER
  or SCHED_FIFO task, such a task is promoted to -deadline
- setup_new_dl_entity() is invoked, and it sets the tasks' deadline to
  rq_clock(rq) (+ 0), so the task holding the lock is immediately
  scheduled
- as soon as update_curr_dl() is invoked (in the worst case at the next
  tick), the task's deadline and runtime are set to the "desired values"
  (using pi_se)

So, the behaviour is not changed too much respect to the previous one.



				Luca

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-17 20:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-17  9:48 [PATCH] sched/deadline: remove useless param from setup_new_dl_entity Juri Lelli
2016-06-17  9:58 ` luca abeni
2016-06-17 10:08   ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-17 13:49 ` Steven Rostedt
2016-06-17 16:28   ` Juri Lelli
2016-06-17 20:15     ` luca abeni
2016-06-17 20:36       ` luca abeni [this message]
2016-06-27 15:52     ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-27 17:24       ` 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=20160617223612.2c8bf505@utopia \
    --to=luca.abeni@unitn.it \
    --cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox