Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] sched/deadline: Deferrable dl server

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 01:44:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> Should we rather not cap the runtime, something like so?
> 

Clearly I should've done the patch against a tree that includes the
changes... 

> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 58b542bf2893..1453a2cd0680 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -829,10 +829,12 @@ static inline void setup_new_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>   */
>  static void replenish_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>  {
> +	struct sched_dl_entity *pi_se = pi_of(dl_se);
>  	struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se);
>  	struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq);
> +	u64 dl_runtime = pi_se->dl_runtime;
>  
> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(pi_of(dl_se)->dl_runtime <= 0);
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(dl_runtime <= 0);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * This could be the case for a !-dl task that is boosted.
> @@ -851,10 +853,13 @@ static void replenish_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>  	 * arbitrary large.
>  	 */
>  	while (dl_se->runtime <= 0) {
> -		dl_se->deadline += pi_of(dl_se)->dl_period;
> -		dl_se->runtime += pi_of(dl_se)->dl_runtime;
> +		dl_se->deadline += pi_se->dl_period;
> +		dl_se->runtime += dl_runtime;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (dl_se->zerolax && dl_se->runtime > dl_runtime)
> +		dl_se->runtime = dl_runtime;
> +

This should ofcourse go in the if (dl_se->dl_zerolax_armed) branch a
little down from here.

>  	/*
>  	 * At this point, the deadline really should be "in
>  	 * the future" with respect to rq->clock. If it's