Messages in this thread | | | From | Valentin Schneider <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH V3 4/6] sched/deadline: Introduce deadline servers | Date | Fri, 23 Jun 2023 17:47:05 +0100 |
| |
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).
> + /* 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?
> return p; > } >
| |