Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:55:31 +0200 | From | Juri Lelli <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |