On 10/02/16 12:43, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi all,
>
Hi Luca,
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 11:32:58 +0000
> Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> 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);
> > + __dl_add_ac(task_rq(p), new_bw);
> > err = 0;
> > } else if (dl_policy(policy) && task_has_dl_policy(p) &&
> > !__dl_overflow(dl_b, cpus, p->dl.dl_bw, new_bw)) {
> > __dl_clear(dl_b, p->dl.dl_bw);
> > + __dl_sub_ac(task_rq(p), p->dl.dl_bw);
> > __dl_add(dl_b, new_bw);
> > + __dl_add_ac(task_rq(p), new_bw);
> > err = 0;
> > } 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 here, maybe they
> can be added in switched_to_dl() and switched_from_dl()?
>
That might work too yes. I think there is value if we are able to move
all __dl_{add,sub}_ac calls in deadline.c. Actually, we should probably
move __dl_{add,clear} there as well, so that changes to rq and
root_domain happen at the same time.
> I'll test this idea locally, and I'll send an updated patch if it works.
>
Thanks! Will wait for it :).
Best,
- Juri
