Re: Another SCHED_DEADLINE bug (with bisection and possible fix)

[Luca Abeni]

On 01/07/2015 02:04 PM, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
[...]
> > > and further enqueue_task() places it on the dl_rq.
> > I was under the impression that no further enqueue_task() will happen (since
> > the task is throttled, it is not on runqueue, so __sched_setscheduler() will
> > not dequeue/enqueue it).
> > But I am probably missing something else :)
>
> We have two concept of "on runqueue". The first one is rq->on_rq. It means
> that a task is "queued". The second is on_dl_rq(dl_se).
>
> When task is not "queued", it's always not on dl_rq.
>
> When task is "queued" it may be in two states:
> 1)on_dl_rq() -- this means the task is not throttled;
> 2)!on_dl_rq() -- is task as throttled.
>
> So when we are discussing about a throttled task, the task is "queued". If
> you clear dl_throttled, __sched_setscheduler() places it back it the both
> meaning: on_rq and on_dl_rq, and the task becomes available for picking
> in __schedule().
Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining! Now, everything is more clear and I agree
with you.

[...]
> Does my patch help you? It helps me, but anyway I need your confirmation.
I am just back from vacations, and I had no time to test it yet... I hope to
test it before the end of the week, and I'll let you know (but now I am convinced
that it should help).



			Thanks again,
				Luca

--
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/