lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE policy implementation.
On 04/11/2012 03:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 09:14 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
>
>> +static void replenish_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);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * We Keep moving the deadline away until we get some
>
> s/Keep/keep/
>
>> + * available runtime for the entity. This ensures correct
>> + * handling of situations where the runtime overrun is
>> + * arbitrary large.
>> + */
>> + while (dl_se->runtime<= 0) {
>> + dl_se->deadline += dl_se->dl_deadline;
>> + dl_se->runtime += dl_se->dl_runtime;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * At this point, the deadline really should be "in
>> + * the future" with respect to rq->clock. If it's
>> + * not, we are, for some reason, lagging too much!
>> + * Anyway, after having warn userspace abut that,
>> + * we still try to keep the things running by
>> + * resetting the deadline and the budget of the
>> + * entity.
>> + */
>> + if (dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, rq->clock)) {
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>> + dl_se->deadline = rq->clock + dl_se->dl_deadline;
>> + dl_se->runtime = dl_se->dl_runtime;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>
> I just finished reviewing patches 1-5, and have yet to find anything
> wrong with them (except for these typos). I'll continue my review, and
> then I'll start testing them.
>
> Good work (so far ;-)
>
> -- Steve
>
>

Well, I tried my best to not spoil to much the work made by
Dario & Co. :-).

Anyway, thanks!

- Juri


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-11 15:57    [W:0.265 / U:13.140 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site