Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:59:08AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> writes: >> > Google has this patch-set replacing min_vruntime with an actual global >> > 0-lag, which greatly simplifies things. If only they'd post it sometime >> > :/ /me prods pjt and ben with a sharp stick :-) >> > >> >> No, we don't have any patches like that. I wish, we've screwed up >> vruntime a couple of times too. > > Hurm, I was sure you guys were doing something entirely different from > what mainline does. > > IIRC Andrew Hunter was 'working' on getting that posted. See also: > lkml.kernel.org/r/CADroS=6ncpao6wwxbxbob6ququp96enjbsduzqngasd_pzd...@mail.gmail.com
Oh, I was looking at the wrong branches. Sigh. Yeah, we just do an unlocked "se->vruntime -= old->min_vruntime - new->min_vruntime;" in migrate, and remove/add it in switched_from/switched_to_fair. This still isn't replacing min_vruntime with anything cool, perhaps you and Andrew were using opposite definitions of relative here - we have fair tasks always having a vruntime that is relative to min_vruntime, rather than temporarily having the 0-based one when doing non-SLEEP/WAKEUP.
