From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755131AbcGEQ6Q (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2016 12:58:16 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:54224 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751544AbcGEQ6J (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2016 12:58:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:58:30 +0100 From: Juri Lelli To: Steven Rostedt Cc: peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, luca.abeni@unitn.it Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/deadline: remove useless param from setup_new_dl_entity Message-ID: <20160705165829.GN17689@e106622-lin> References: <1467227263-31349-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20160705102013.25a1a1dc@gandalf.local.home> <20160705143933.GJ17689@e106622-lin> <20160705124740.34a3fbb5@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160705124740.34a3fbb5@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/07/16 12:47, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:39:33 +0100 > Juri Lelli wrote: > > return; > > > > > > > > /* > > > > + * Use the scheduling parameters of the top pi-waiter task, > > > > + * if we have one from which we can inherit a deadline. > > > > + */ > > > > + if (pi_task && dl_se->dl_boosted && dl_prio(pi_task->normal_prio)) > > > > + pi_se = &pi_task->dl; > > > > + > > > > > > OK, I'm micro-optimizing now, but hey, isn't this a fast path? > > > > > > What about changing the above to: > > > > > > struct task_struct *pi_task; > > > [...] > > > > > > if (dl_se->dl_boosted && dl_prio(pi_task->normal_prio && > > ^ > > OK, we need to reorder these two > > V > > > (pi_task = rt_mutex_get_top_task(dl_task_of(dl_se))) > > > pe_se = &pi_task->dl; > > Opps, you're right. > > > > > > > This way we don't need to do any work of looking at > > > rt_mutex_get_top_task() for the normal case. > > > > > > > But, yes. Looks good to me. I'll shoot a v3 ASAP. > > I have to ask, should there be any check if the dl_se has a shorter > deadline than the pi one? > Yeah. I wondered the same actually. I convinced myself that, since the task is boosted, we assume that the donor will have a shorter deadline. We seem to be doing the same elsewhere, but Luca was saying some time ago that the DI thing my have some problems and needs to be revised. Is is fair enough fixing this bit in accordance with the current (maybe broken) behaviour and then spend time reviewing the whole thing, or do we want to do both at the same time (which will of course require more time)? Best, - Juri