On 9/8/15 4:38 PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
On 9/8/15 4:22 PM, Byungchul Park wrote:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 04:04:49PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
However, if se->vruntime -= cfs_rq->min_vruntime is positive, the
behavior is different after your patch. e.g. se->vruntime(the
relative vruntime in switched_to_fair()) < min_vruntime -
sysctl_sched_latency/2
before your patch:
se->vruntime = min_vruntime - sysctl_sched_latency/2 (place_entity())
my patch is based on ff277d4 commit at tip/sched/core.
there's no change between before and after.
check it please.
and this logic seems to be no problem to me. :(
Your logic will lose fair sleeper bonus in the scenario which I
pointed out.
i mean in ff277d4 commit:
Please include the commit subject when you point out a commit, do you
mean this one?
commit ff277d4250fe715b6666219b1a3423b863418794
Author: Andrea Parri <[email protected]>
Date: Wed Aug 5 15:56:19 2015 +0200
sched/deadline: Fix comment in enqueue_task_dl()
The "dl_boosted" flag is set by comparing *absolute* deadlines
(c.f., rt_mutex_setprio()).
What's the relationship w/ this patch?
I think you mean your commit:
commit 7855a35ac07a350e2cd26f09568a6d8e372be358
Author: Byungchul Park <[email protected]>
Date: Mon Aug 10 18:02:55 2015 +0900
sched: Ensure a task has a non-normalized vruntime when returning
back to CFS
However, that is wrong in the scenario which I mentioned.
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
