Re: [PATCH 05/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE policy implementation.

[Tommaso Cucinotta]

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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/