Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1340806 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

#1340806 — Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted bandwidth

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?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1340811

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web