On 19/01/26 12:35, Gabriele Monaco wrote: > 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.
Yeah, it seems alright (at least for now) to use original parameters. Thanks, Juri
