Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:04:06 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 6/7] sched/deadline: Deferrable dl server |
| |
On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 04:58:11PM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> > So one thing we could do is have update_curr_fair() decrement > > fair_server's runtime and yield the period then it hits 0 (and capping > > it at 0, not allowing it to go negative or so). > > > > That way you only force the situation when FAIR hasn't had it's allotted > > time this perio, and only for as much as to make up for the time it > > lacks. > > We can also decrease the runtime to a negative number while in > defer/throttle state, and let the while in replenish_dl_entity() to > replenish with the += runtime;
Yes, but my point was that fair_server gives a lower bound of runtime per period, more -- if available -- is fine.
If we allow negative runtime, you'll affect future periods, and that is not desired in this case.
Or am I still confused?
| |