Hi Peter,
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:35:01 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
> > This is because of the definition used when CONFIG_SCHED_DEBUG is
> > not defined (I noticed the issue when testing with random kernel
> > configurations).
>
> I'm fine changing the definition, just find something that
On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:35:01 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 11:30:05PM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:23:59 +0100
> > Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > [...]
> > > u64 running_bw;
> > >
> > > static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_en
On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 11:30:05PM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:23:59 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> [...]
> > u64 running_bw;
> >
> > static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct
> > dl_rq *dl_rq) {
> > u64 old = dl_rq->running_bw;
Hi Peter,
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:23:59 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
> u64 running_bw;
>
> static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct
> dl_rq *dl_rq) {
> u64 old = dl_rq->running_bw;
>
> dl_rq->running_bw += dl_se->dl_bw;
> SCHED_WARN_ON(dl_rq->
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:23:59 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> That said; there's something to be said for:
>
> u64 running_bw;
>
> static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct dl_rq *dl_rq)
> {
> u64 old = dl_rq->running_bw;
>
> dl_rq->running_bw += dl_se->
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 04:10:17PM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
> Ok; I originally made it signed because I wanted the "running_bw < 0"
> check, but I can change it to "dl_rq->running_bw > old" (I did not
> think about it).
Happy accident of me staring at unsigned over/under-flow for the past
several
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:23:59 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:58:11AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> > I agree with Daniel, especially since I don't usually trust the
> > compiler. And the added variable is more of a distraction as it
> > doesn't seem to have any real p
Hi Peter,
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 14:55:54 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:06:33PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
>
> > @@ -498,6 +514,8 @@ static void update_dl_entity(struct
> > sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se);
> > struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_r
On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:56:35PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Mmm. You explicitly check that TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING or DEQUEUE_SLEEP
> (which btw can be actually put together with an or condition), so I
> don't think that any of those turn out to be true when the task dies.
> Also, AFAIU, do_exit() w
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:58:11AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I agree with Daniel, especially since I don't usually trust the
> compiler. And the added variable is more of a distraction as it doesn't
> seem to have any real purpose.
I don't think there's anything here to trust the compiler on
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:06:33PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> @@ -498,6 +514,8 @@ static void update_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity
> *dl_se,
> struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se);
> struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq);
>
> + add_running_bw(dl_se, dl_rq);
> +
> if (d
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:56:35 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> > > > @@ -947,14 +965,19 @@ static void enqueue_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct
> > > > task_struct *p, int flags)
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > + if (p->on_rq == TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING)
> > > > +
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 20:02:29 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> > > So, it actually matters for next patch,
> > > not here. But, maybe we want to do things clean from start?
> > You mean, because patch 2/6 adds
> > + if (hrtimer_active(&p->dl.inactive_timer)) {
> > + raw_spin_loc
On 08/11/16 20:09, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:53:09 +
> Juri Lelli wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Also, AFAIU, do_exit() works on current and the TASK_DEAD case is
> > > > handled in finish_task_switch(), so I don't think we are taking
> > > > care of the "task is dying"
Hi again,
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:53:09 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> > > Also, AFAIU, do_exit() works on current and the TASK_DEAD case is
> > > handled in finish_task_switch(), so I don't think we are taking
> > > care of the "task is dying" condition.
> > Ok, so I am missing something... The s
On 08/11/16 19:17, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi Juri,
>
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:56:35 +
> Juri Lelli wrote:
> [...]
> > > > > static void switched_to_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct
> > > > > *p) {
> > > > > + add_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> > > > >
> > > > > /* If p is not que
Hi Juri,
On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:56:35 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> > > > static void switched_to_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct
> > > > *p) {
> > > > + add_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> > > >
> > > > /* If p is not queued we will update its parameters at
> > > > next wak
On 01/11/16 22:10, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi Juri,
>
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:45:43 +
> Juri Lelli wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > a few nitpicks on subject and changelog and a couple of questions below.
> >
> > Subject should be changed to something like
> >
> > sched/deadline: track the active ut
Hi Juri,
On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:45:43 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a few nitpicks on subject and changelog and a couple of questions below.
>
> Subject should be changed to something like
>
> sched/deadline: track the active utilisation
Ok; that's easy :)
I guess a similar change should
Hi,
a few nitpicks on subject and changelog and a couple of questions below.
Subject should be changed to something like
sched/deadline: track the active utilisation
On 24/10/16 16:06, Luca Abeni wrote:
> The active utilisation here is defined as the total utilisation of the
s/The active/Acti
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 09:58:11 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:29:16 +0200
> luca abeni wrote:
>
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:09:52 +0200
> > Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > +static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se,
> >
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:29:16 +0200
luca abeni wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:09:52 +0200
> Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> [...]
> > > +static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct
> > > dl_rq *dl_rq) +{
> > > + u64 se_bw = dl_se->dl_bw;
> > > +
> > > + d
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:09:52 +0200
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
[...]
> > +static void add_running_bw(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se, struct
> > dl_rq *dl_rq) +{
> > + u64 se_bw = dl_se->dl_bw;
> > +
> > + dl_rq->running_bw += se_bw;
> > +}
>
> why not...
>
> static *inline
Il 24/10/2016 16:06, Luca Abeni ha scritto:
> The active utilisation here is defined as the total utilisation of the
> active (TASK_RUNNING) tasks queued on a runqueue. Hence, it is increased
> when a task wakes up and is decreased when a task blocks.
>
> When a task is migrated from CPUi to CPUj,
The active utilisation here is defined as the total utilisation of the
active (TASK_RUNNING) tasks queued on a runqueue. Hence, it is increased
when a task wakes up and is decreased when a task blocks.
When a task is migrated from CPUi to CPUj, immediately subtract the task's
utilisation from CPUi
25 matches
Mail list logo
