From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753966Ab2DXGw4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:52:56 -0400 Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:63983 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751829Ab2DXGwy (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:52:54 -0400 Message-ID: <4F964DC1.2020703@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 08:52:49 +0200 From: Juri Lelli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dario Faggioli CC: Tommaso Cucinotta , Peter Zijlstra , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, cfriesen@nortel.com, oleg@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, darren@dvhart.com, johan.eker@ericsson.com, p.faure@akatech.ch, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, claudio@evidence.eu.com, michael@amarulasolutions.com, fchecconi@gmail.com, nicola.manica@disi.unitn.it, luca.abeni@unitn.it, dhaval.giani@gmail.com, hgu1972@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, insop.song@ericsson.com, liming.wang@windriver.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE policy implementation. References: <1333696481-3433-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com> <1333696481-3433-6-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com> <1335177104.28150.113.camel@twins> <4F9530F7.9010400@gmail.com> <4F95C8AF.2040606@sssup.it> <1335217531.28150.179.camel@twins> <4F95E4EF.2080802@sssup.it> <1335248967.2397.8.camel@Abyss> In-Reply-To: <1335248967.2397.8.camel@Abyss> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/24/2012 08:29 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 00:25 +0100, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: >>> The idea is that ->clock_task gives the time as observed by schedulable >>> tasks and excludes other muck. >> >> so clock_task might be better to compute the consumed budget at task >> deschedule, but for setting deadlines one period ahead in the future >> guess the regular wall-time rq->clock is the one to be used? >> > Yep, that was the idea, unless my recollection has completely gone > flaky! :-P > > Perhaps adding a comment saying right this thing above, as Peter > suggested? > Sure! TODO for the next release :-). Thanks, - Juri