Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Jul 2023 17:52:42 +0200 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH V3 4/6] sched/deadline: Introduce deadline servers | From | Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <> |
| |
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; >> } >> >
| |