On 07/20/2018 02:53 PM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 20/07/18 14:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 02:46:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:16:30AM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>>>> index fbfc3f1d368a..8b50eea4b607 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>>>> @@ -2090,8 +2090,14 @@ static int push_dl_task(struct rq *rq)
>>>> sub_rq_bw(&next_task->dl, &rq->dl);
>>>> set_task_cpu(next_task, later_rq->cpu);
>>>> add_rq_bw(&next_task->dl, &later_rq->dl);
>>>> +
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Update the later_rq clock here, because the clock is used
>>>> + * by the cpufreq_update_util() inside __add_running_bw().
>>>> + */
>>>> + update_rq_clock(later_rq);
>>>> add_running_bw(&next_task->dl, &later_rq->dl);
>>>> - activate_task(later_rq, next_task, 0);
>>>> + activate_task(later_rq, next_task, ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK);
>>>> ret = 1;
>>>>
>>>> resched_curr(later_rq);
>>>
>>> Why isn't push_rt_task() affected by the very same issue?
>>
>> Aah, I see, its the add_running_bw() think; for which RT doesn't have a
>> counter-part.
>
> Right, but doesn't enqueue_top_rt_rq end-up being called by activate_
> task on lowest_rq? Mmm.
AFAICS we have:
push_rt_task() {
activate_task() {
enqueue_task(,,(flags=0)) {
if (!(flags & ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK))
update_rq_clock(rq);
enqueue_task_rt() {
enqueue_rt_entity() {
enqueue_top_rt_rq();
}
}
}
}
So we will have the clock updated already...
Am I missing something?
Thanks,
-- Daniel
