On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 11:11:30 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:54:54AM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > I put this change in a local tree together with other fixes / cleanups
> > I plan to submit in the next weeks. Should I send it together with the
> > other
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 11:04:52 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:06:09AM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > > Yes, grouping all the flags in a single field was my intention too... I
> > > planned to submit a patch to do this after merging the reclaiming
> > > patches... But maybe i
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:54:54AM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> I put this change in a local tree together with other fixes / cleanups
> I plan to submit in the next weeks. Should I send it together with the
> other patches, or are you going to apply it separately?
Posting them in a s
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:06:09AM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > Yes, grouping all the flags in a single field was my intention too... I
> > planned to submit a patch to do this after merging the reclaiming
> > patches... But maybe it is better to do this first :)
>
> I implemented this change, but
Hi Peter,
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:47:15 +0100
luca abeni wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:20:41 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:52:55AM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > > index d67ee
Hi Peter,
I put this change in a local tree together with other fixes / cleanups
I plan to submit in the next weeks. Should I send it together with the
other patches, or are you going to apply it separately?
In the first case, what is the correct authorship / SOB chain (I ask
because I keep gettin
Hi guys,
2017-03-27 10:20 GMT+02:00 Luca Abeni :
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:31:46 -0400
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:47:15 +0100
>> luca abeni wrote:
>>
>> > Ok... Since I am not good at ascii art, would it be ok to add a
>> > textual description? If yes, I'll add a comment
On 27/03/17 09:43, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi Juri,
>
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:17:45 +0100
> Juri Lelli wrote:
> [...]
> > > > In general I feel it would be nice to have a state diagram
> > > > included somewhere near these two functions. It would be nice to
> > > > not have to dig out the PDF every
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:31:46 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:47:15 +0100
> luca abeni wrote:
>
> > Ok... Since I am not good at ascii art, would it be ok to add a
> > textual description? If yes, I'll add a comment like:
> > "
> > The utilization of a task is added to the r
Hi Juri,
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:17:45 +0100
Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> > > In general I feel it would be nice to have a state diagram
> > > included somewhere near these two functions. It would be nice to
> > > not have to dig out the PDF every time.
> >
> > Ok... Since I am not good at ascii a
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:47:15 +0100
luca abeni wrote:
[...]
> > > + } else {
> > > + /*
> > > + * Since "dl_non_contending" is not set, the
> > > + * task's utilization has already been removed
> > > from
> > > + * active utilization (either when the task
> > > bl
On 24/03/17 22:47, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:20:41 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:52:55AM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
> >
[...]
> >
> > In general I feel it would be nice to have a state diagram included
> > somewhere near these two
Hi Mathieu,
On Sun, 26 Mar 2017 11:32:59 -0600
Mathieu Poirier wrote:
[...]
> > + task_rq_unlock(rq, p, &rf);
> > + put_task_struct(p);
> > +
> > + return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void init_inactive_task_timer(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>
> To be consistent wi
On 23 March 2017 at 21:52, luca abeni wrote:
> From: Luca Abeni
>
> This patch implements a more theoretically sound algorithm for
> tracking active utilization: instead of decreasing it when a
> task blocks, use a timer (the "inactive timer", named after the
> "Inactive" task state of the GRUB a
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:47:15 +0100
luca abeni wrote:
> Ok... Since I am not good at ascii art, would it be ok to add a textual
> description? If yes, I'll add a comment like:
> "
> The utilization of a task is added to the runqueue's active utilization
> when the task becomes active (is enqueued
Hi Peter,
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 14:20:41 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:52:55AM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > index d67eee8..952cac8 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> >
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:52:55AM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
> @@ -2518,6 +2520,7 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p, int
> policy,
> !__dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, p->dl.dl_bw, new_bw)) {
> __dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
> __dl_add(dl_b, new_bw
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:52:55AM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index d67eee8..952cac8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -445,16 +445,33 @@ struct sched_dl_entity {
>*
>* @dl_yielded te
From: Luca Abeni
This patch implements a more theoretically sound algorithm for
tracking active utilization: instead of decreasing it when a
task blocks, use a timer (the "inactive timer", named after the
"Inactive" task state of the GRUB algorithm) to decrease the
active utilization at the so ca
19 matches
Mail list logo
