Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted bandwidth

From	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted bandwidth
Date	2016-02-23 16:50 +0100
Message-ID	<r5nnQ-7qp-27@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qZTqq-5fX-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <qZTqr-5fX-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <r0BhM-1Cs-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <r0Cnw-2fc-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <r0DjA-2QB-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

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?

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted  bandwidth Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-02-23 16:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted  bandwidth Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> - 2016-02-23 17:00 +0100

csiph-web