On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:20:34AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:07:06AM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Argh, this makes lot of sense to me. I've actually pondered a tree/list
> > solution, but then decided to try the cumulative approach because it
> > looked nicer. But it
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:07:06AM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Argh, this makes lot of sense to me. I've actually pondered a tree/list
> solution, but then decided to try the cumulative approach because it
> looked nicer. But it contains holes, I'm afraid. As Luca already said,
> GRUB shouldn't have
Hi Peter,
On 24/02/16 20:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 06:05:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Having two separate means of accounting this also feels more fragile
> > than one would want.
> >
> > Let me think a bit about this.
>
> I think there's a fundamental problem
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:46:43PM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
>
> I arrived to the conclusion that for GRUB this is not a problem (but,
> as usual, I might be wrong): GRUB just needs to track the per-runqueue
> active/inactive utilization,
Ah! indeed, my bad.
Hi,
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 20:17:52 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 06:05:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Having two separate means of accounting this also feels more fragile
> > than one would want.
> >
> > Let me think a bit about this.
>
> I think there's a fundamen
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 06:05:30PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Having two separate means of accounting this also feels more fragile
> than one would want.
>
> Let me think a bit about this.
I think there's a fundamental problem that makes the whole notion of
per-rq accounting 'impossible'.
On
On 23/02/16 16:48, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:42:40PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > index 9503d59..0ee0ec2 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > @@ -2432,7 +2432,7
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:42:40PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > index 9503d59..0ee0ec2 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -2432,7 +2432,7 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p,
> >
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:53:06 +0100
luca abeni wrote:
[...]
> > Please send the patches in a patch series. It is very hard to review
> > patches that are attachments. And our scripts are made to apply
> > patches from mailing lists. Having attachments just makes the job
> > harder.
>
> Sorry about
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:53:06 +0100
luca abeni wrote:
> Sorry about that; I was in hurry, and I tried to do the quickest
> thing... I'll resend the patches in a more appropriate way on Monday.
Thanks! No rush.
-- Steve
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 09:20:08 -0500
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:43:47 +0100
> luca abeni wrote:
>
>
> > So, the first attached patch (to be applied over Juri's patch) just
> > moves two __dl_sub_ac() and __dl_add_ac() invocations from
> > dl_overflow() to deadline.c, using the
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 14:43:47 +0100
luca abeni wrote:
> So, the first attached patch (to be applied over Juri's patch) just
> moves two __dl_sub_ac() and __dl_add_ac() invocations from
> dl_overflow() to deadline.c, using the switched_from_dl() and
> switched_to_dl() methods. This should cover th
Hi all,
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:58:12 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> > > } else if (!dl_policy(policy) && task_has_dl_policy(p)) {
> > > __dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
> > > + __dl_sub_ac(task_rq(p), p->dl.dl_bw);
> >
> > Instead of adding __dl_add_ac() and __dl_sub_ac) calls
On 12/02/16 18:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:10:12PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > index 6368f43..1eccecf 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
>
> > +static void swap_ta
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:10:12PM +, Juri Lelli wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 6368f43..1eccecf 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +static void swap_task_ac_bw(struct task_struct *p,
> +
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:25:46 -0500
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:05:45 +0100
> luca abeni wrote:
>
>
> > Well, I never used the rq utilization to re-build the root_domain
> > utilization (and I never played with root domains too much... :)...
> > So, I do not really know. Ma
On 11/02/16 09:25, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:05:45 +0100
> luca abeni wrote:
>
>
> > Well, I never used the rq utilization to re-build the root_domain
> > utilization (and I never played with root domains too much... :)...
> > So, I do not really know. Maybe the code shoul
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:05:45 +0100
luca abeni wrote:
> Well, I never used the rq utilization to re-build the root_domain
> utilization (and I never played with root domains too much... :)...
> So, I do not really know. Maybe the code should do:
> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> raw_spi
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:49:59 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> > > > > Luca, did you already face this problem (if I got it right)
> > > > > and thought of a way to fix it? I'll go back and stare a bit
> > > > > more at those paths.
> > > > In my patch I took care of the first case (modifying
> > >
On 11/02/16 13:40, Luca Abeni wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:27:54 +
> Juri Lelli wrote:
>
> > On 11/02/16 13:22, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > > Hi Juri,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:12:57 +
> > > Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > I think we still have (at least) two problems:
> > >
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:27:54 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 11/02/16 13:22, Luca Abeni wrote:
> > Hi Juri,
> >
> > On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:12:57 +
> > Juri Lelli wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I think we still have (at least) two problems:
> > >
> > > - select_task_rq_dl, if we select a different ta
On 11/02/16 13:22, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi Juri,
>
> On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:12:57 +
> Juri Lelli wrote:
> [...]
> > I think we still have (at least) two problems:
> >
> > - select_task_rq_dl, if we select a different target
> > - select_task_rq might make use of select_fallback_rq, if
> > c
Hi Juri,
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:12:57 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> I think we still have (at least) two problems:
>
> - select_task_rq_dl, if we select a different target
> - select_task_rq might make use of select_fallback_rq, if
> cpus_allowed changed after the task went to sleep
>
> Sec
On 10/02/16 16:27, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 10/02/16 09:37, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:32:58 +
> > Juri Lelli wrote:
> >
[...]
> >
> > I applied this patch and patch 2 and hit this:
> >
[...]
> >
> > It's the warning you added in __dl_sub_ac().
> >
>
> OK. There a
gt; > Best,
> >
> > - Juri
> >
> > --->8---
> >
> > >From 62f70ca3051672dce209e8355cf5eddc9d825c2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Juri Lelli
> > Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:41:09 +
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline:
0 2001
> From: Juri Lelli
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:41:09 +
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted bandwidth
>
I applied this patch and patch 2 and hit this:
[ 2298.134284] [ cut here ]
[ 2298.138933] WARNING: CPU: 4
On 10/02/16 13:48, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:32:58 +
> Juri Lelli wrote:
> [...]
> > From 62f70ca3051672dce209e8355cf5eddc9d825c2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Juri Lelli
> > Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:41:09 +0000
> > Subje
Hi,
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:32:58 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> From 62f70ca3051672dce209e8355cf5eddc9d825c2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Juri Lelli
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:41:09 +
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted
> bandwidth
On 10/02/16 12:43, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi all,
>
Hi Luca,
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:32:58 +
> Juri Lelli wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -2445,14 +2445,18 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p,
> > int policy, if (dl_policy(policy) && !task_has_dl_policy(p) &&
> > !__dl_overflow(dl_b
Hi all,
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:32:58 +
Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> @@ -2445,14 +2445,18 @@ static int dl_overflow(struct task_struct *p,
> int policy, if (dl_policy(policy) && !task_has_dl_policy(p) &&
> !__dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, 0, new_bw)) {
> __dl_add(dl_b, new_bw);
fix the
problem with root domains.
Best,
- Juri
--->8---
>From 62f70ca3051672dce209e8355cf5eddc9d825c2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Juri Lelli
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2016 12:41:09 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: add per rq tracking of admitted bandwidth
Currently SCHED_DEADL
Currently SCHED_DEADLINE scheduling policy tracks bandwidth of tasks
that passed admission control at root_domain level only. This creates
problems when such data structure(s) are destroyed, when we reconfigure
scheduling domains for example.
This is part one of two changes required to fix the pro
32 matches
Mail list logo
