On 02/19/2014 07:53 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> While debugging the crash with the bad nr_running accounting, I hit
> another bug where, after running my sched deadline test, I was getting
> failures to take a CPU offline. It was giving me a -EBUSY error.
>
> Adding a bunch of trace_printk()s around, I found that the cpu
> notifier that called sched_cpu_inactive() was returning a failure. The
> overflow value was coming up negative?
>
> Talking this over with Juri, the problem is that the total_bw update was
> suppose to be made by dl_overflow() which, during my tests, seemed to
> not be called. Adding more trace_printk()s, it wasn't that it wasn't
> called, but it exited out right away with the check of new_bw being
> equal to p->dl.dl_bw. The new_bw calculates the ratio between period and
> runtime. The bug is that if you set a deadline, you do not need to set
> a period if you plan on the period being equal to the deadline. That
> is, if period is zero and deadline is not, then the system call should
> set the period to be equal to the deadline. This is done elsewhere in
> the code.
>
> The fix is easy, check if period is set, and if it is not, then use the
> deadline.
>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index b46131e..2491448 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -1952,7 +1952,7 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p, int
> policy,
> {
>
> struct dl_bw *dl_b = dl_bw_of(task_cpu(p));
> - u64 period = attr->sched_period;
> + u64 period = attr->sched_period ?: attr->sched_deadline;
> u64 runtime = attr->sched_runtime;
> u64 new_bw = dl_policy(policy) ? to_ratio(period, runtime) : 0;
> int cpus, err = -1;
>
Thanks!
- Juri
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
