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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1371507 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC v2 1/7] Track the active utilisation

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: [RFC v2 1/7] Track the active utilisation Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-04-05 14:30 +0200
    Re: [RFC v2 1/7] Track the active utilisation luca abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it> - 2016-04-05 18:50 +0200

#1371507 — Re: [RFC v2 1/7] Track the active utilisation

On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 05:12:27PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> @@ -1210,6 +1232,8 @@ static void task_fork_dl(struct task_struct *p)
>  static void task_dead_dl(struct task_struct *p)
>  {
>  	struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(task_cpu(p));
> +	struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(&p->dl);
> +	struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Since we are TASK_DEAD we won't slip out of the domain!
> @@ -1218,6 +1242,9 @@ static void task_dead_dl(struct task_struct *p)
>  	/* XXX we should retain the bw until 0-lag */
>  	dl_b->total_bw -= p->dl.dl_bw;
>  	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&dl_b->lock);
> +
> +	if (task_on_rq_queued(p))
> +		sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
>  }
>  

A dead task cannot be running, not be queued, right? ISTR you remove
this hunk in a later patch as well.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1371780

Hi Peter,

first of all, thanks for all the reviews!

On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:23:27 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -1218,6 +1242,9 @@ static void task_dead_dl(struct task_struct *p)
> >  	/* XXX we should retain the bw until 0-lag */
> >  	dl_b->total_bw -= p->dl.dl_bw;
> >  	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&dl_b->lock);
> > +
> > +	if (task_on_rq_queued(p))
> > +		sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> >  }
> >  
> 
> A dead task cannot be running, not be queued, right? ISTR you remove
> this hunk in a later patch as well.
I suspect this is some "better safe than sorry" code I added trying
to solve some issue that then I solved in a different way... But I
forgot to remove it.

I'll fix the patch and re-test.



			Thanks,
				Luca

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web