Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Nov 2023 13:50:36 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] sched/deadline: Deferrable dl server |
| |
On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 01:44:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Should we rather not cap the runtime, something like so? >
Clearly I should've done the patch against a tree that includes the changes...
> --- > diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c > index 58b542bf2893..1453a2cd0680 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c > @@ -829,10 +829,12 @@ static inline void setup_new_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se) > */ > static void replenish_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se) > { > + struct sched_dl_entity *pi_se = pi_of(dl_se); > struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se); > struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq); > + u64 dl_runtime = pi_se->dl_runtime; > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(pi_of(dl_se)->dl_runtime <= 0); > + WARN_ON_ONCE(dl_runtime <= 0); > > /* > * This could be the case for a !-dl task that is boosted. > @@ -851,10 +853,13 @@ static void replenish_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se) > * arbitrary large. > */ > while (dl_se->runtime <= 0) { > - dl_se->deadline += pi_of(dl_se)->dl_period; > - dl_se->runtime += pi_of(dl_se)->dl_runtime; > + dl_se->deadline += pi_se->dl_period; > + dl_se->runtime += dl_runtime; > } > > + if (dl_se->zerolax && dl_se->runtime > dl_runtime) > + dl_se->runtime = dl_runtime; > +
This should ofcourse go in the if (dl_se->dl_zerolax_armed) branch a little down from here.
> /* > * At this point, the deadline really should be "in > * the future" with respect to rq->clock. If it's
| |