lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE policy implementation.
Il 23/04/2012 11:37, Juri Lelli ha scritto:
> On 04/23/2012 12:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 09:14 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>> + dl_se->deadline = rq->clock + dl_se->dl_deadline;
>>
>> You might want to use rq->clock_task, this clock excludes times spend in
>> hardirq context and steal-time (when paravirt).
>>
>> Then again, it might not want to use that.. but its something you might
>> want to consider and make explicit by means of a comment.
>
> Yes, I planned a consistency check for the use of clock/clock_task
> throughout the code, but it seems I then forgot it.
> Planned for the next iteration :-).

unless I'm mistaken, there are 3 repetitions of this block in 05/16:

+ dl_se->deadline = rq->clock + dl_se->dl_deadline;
+ dl_se->runtime = dl_se->dl_runtime;


perhaps enclosing them into a function (e.g., reset_from_now() or
similar) may help to keep consistency...

Another thing: I cannot get the real difference between rq->clock and
rq->task_clock.
If task_clock is a kind of CLOCK_MONOTONIC thing that increases only
when the task (or any task) is scheduled, then you don't want to use
that here.
Here you need to set the new ->deadline to an absolute time, so I guess
the regular rq->clock is what you need, isn't it ?

Hope I didn't say too much nonsense.

T.

--
Tommaso Cucinotta, Computer Engineering PhD, Researcher
ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy
Tel +39 050 882 024, Fax +39 050 882 003
http://retis.sssup.it/people/tommaso



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-23 23:31    [W:0.104 / U:2.464 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site