On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:06:33PM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:

> @@ -498,6 +514,8 @@ static void update_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity 
> *dl_se,
>       struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se);
>       struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq);
>  
> +     add_running_bw(dl_se, dl_rq);
> +
>       if (dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, rq_clock(rq)) ||
>           dl_entity_overflow(dl_se, pi_se, rq_clock(rq))) {
>               dl_se->deadline = rq_clock(rq) + pi_se->dl_deadline;
> @@ -947,14 +965,19 @@ static void enqueue_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct 
> task_struct *p, int flags)
>               return;
>       }
>  
> +     if (p->on_rq == TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING)
> +             add_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> +
>       /*
>        * If p is throttled, we do nothing. In fact, if it exhausted
>        * its budget it needs a replenishment and, since it now is on
>        * its rq, the bandwidth timer callback (which clearly has not
>        * run yet) will take care of this.
>        */
> -     if (p->dl.dl_throttled && !(flags & ENQUEUE_REPLENISH))
> +     if (p->dl.dl_throttled && !(flags & ENQUEUE_REPLENISH)) {
> +             add_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
>               return;
> +     }
>  
>       enqueue_dl_entity(&p->dl, pi_se, flags);
>  

I realize the enqueue path is a bit of a maze, but this hurts my head.

Isn't there anything we can do to streamline this a bit?

Maybe move the add_running_bw() from update_dl_entity() to the
ENQUEUE_WAKEUP branch in enqueue_dl_entity()? Because that's what you
really want, isn't it? Its not actually related to recomputing the
absolute deadline.

> @@ -972,6 +995,12 @@ static void dequeue_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct 
> task_struct *p, int flags)
>  {
>       update_curr_dl(rq);
>       __dequeue_task_dl(rq, p, flags);
> +
> +     if (p->on_rq == TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING)
> +             sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> +
> +     if (flags & DEQUEUE_SLEEP)
> +             sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
>  }

We could look at adding more enqueue/dequeue flags to streamline this a
bit, bit lets not do that now.

Reply via email to