On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:58:30 +0100
Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 05/07/16 12:47, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:39:33 +0100
> > Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > return;
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > + * Use the scheduling parameters of the top
> > > > > pi-waiter task,
> > > > > + * if we have one from which we can inherit a
> > > > > deadline.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (pi_task && dl_se->dl_boosted &&
> > > > > dl_prio(pi_task->normal_prio))
> > > > > + pi_se = &pi_task->dl;
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > OK, I'm micro-optimizing now, but hey, isn't this a fast path?
> > > >
> > > > What about changing the above to:
> > > >
> > > > struct task_struct *pi_task;
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > if (dl_se->dl_boosted && dl_prio(pi_task->normal_prio
> > > > &&
> > > ^
> > > OK, we need to reorder these two
> > > V
> > > > (pi_task = rt_mutex_get_top_task(dl_task_of(dl_se)))
> > > > pe_se = &pi_task->dl;
> >
> > Opps, you're right.
> >
> > > >
> > > > This way we don't need to do any work of looking at
> > > > rt_mutex_get_top_task() for the normal case.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But, yes. Looks good to me. I'll shoot a v3 ASAP.
> >
> > I have to ask, should there be any check if the dl_se has a shorter
> > deadline than the pi one?
> >
>
> Yeah. I wondered the same actually. I convinced myself that, since the
> task is boosted, we assume that the donor will have a shorter
> deadline.
Do you mean relative deadline (dl_se->dl_deadline) or absolute
(scheduling) dealine (dl_se->deadline)?
If I understand well, here we are in setup_new_dl_entity(), right?
This should be called only from switched_to_dl(); so, dl_se is from a
task that is switching to -deadline. If it is dl_boosted, it means that
it is switching from SCHED_OTHER (or RT) to -deadline because of
inheritance... So, it is very likely that dl_se->dl_deadline is not
meaningful.
Moreover, setup_new_dl_entity() is only called if the current
scheduling deadline of the task is not usable (that is, if
"dl_time_before(p->dl.deadline, rq_clock(rq)"). So, dl_se->deadline
will be surely smaller than pi_se->deadline... But the inheritance has
to happen anyway.
> We seem to be doing the same elsewhere, but Luca was saying
> some time ago that the DI thing my have some problems and needs to be
> revised.
My doubts regarding the inheritance code currently used for -deadline
tasks are due to the fact that it is not clear which kind of
inheritance algorithm is used...
I think it should use deadline inheritance, that, AFAIK, says that when
task T1 block waiting for task T2, T2 can inherit T1's _absolute_
deadline - if it is earlier than T2's one.
But the current code seems to be using relative deadlines (dl_deadline)
to decide the inheritance...
Having a better look at this is in my TODO list... But I still need to
find some time :)
Luca
> Is is fair enough fixing this bit in accordance with the
> current (maybe broken) behaviour and then spend time reviewing the
> whole thing, or do we want to do both at the same time (which will of
> course require more time)?
>
> Best,
>
> - Juri
