On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 12:04 +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > Why use pi_of() in above cases? > > For the first, in case the macro is called while the task is actually > boosted, we then might continue to use that even after such task gets > deboosted?
Mmh, yeah thinking about it again it doesn't make much sense considering we are not tracking when a task is deboosted, unless that always corresponds to a replenish. Thought that doesn't seem the case.. > For the second, current PI implementation (even if admittedly not ideal) > uses donor's static dl_runtime to replenish boosted task runtime, but > then accounting is performed again the task dynamic runtime, not the > donor's (this all will hopefully change soon with proxy exec..)? At this point I should probably just ignore the pi_of() right? I'm assuming the original (non-boosted) parameters are more conservative anyway so it shouldn't be a problem for the model. Thanks, Gabriele
