Re: [RFC PATCH V3 4/6] sched/deadline: Introduce deadline servers

[Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>]

Back from EOSS...

On 6/23/23 18:47, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 08/06/23 17:58, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>> @@ -2033,9 +2147,20 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_next_task_dl(struct rq *rq)
>>  	struct task_struct *p;
>>  
>>  	p = pick_task_dl(rq);
>> -	if (p)
>> +	if (!p)
>> +		return p;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * XXX: re-check !dl_server, changed from v2 because of
>> +	 * pick_next_task_dl change
>> +	 */
>> +	if (!dl_server(&p->dl))
>>  		set_next_task_dl(rq, p, true);
>>
> 
> Should this be
> 
>        if (!p->server)
> 
> instead? AFAICT dl_server(&p->dl) can never be true since there's no
> pi_se-like link to the server via the dl_se, only via the task_struct, and
> the server pick cannot return the server itself (as it's a pure sched_entity).

makes sense... I will check that in the v4.

> 
>> +	/* XXX not quite right */
>> +	if (hrtick_enabled(rq))
>> +		start_hrtick_dl(rq, &p->dl);
>> +
> 
> IIUC that got hauled out of set_next_task_dl() to cover the case where we
> pick the server (+ the server pick) and want to more thoroughly enforce the
> server's bandwidth. If so, what's the issue with starting the hrtick here?

I think that the commend was added more as a check if it is correct... it seems it is.

Thanks Vale!
-- Daniel

> 
>>  	return p;
>>  }
>>  
>