Hi,
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 08:43:00 +0800
"chengjian (D)" <cj.chengj...@huawei.com> wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > index 6a73e41a2016..43901fa3f269 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> > @@ -252,7 +252,6 @@ static void task_non_contending(struct
> > task_struct *p) if (dl_entity_is_special(dl_se))
> > return;
> >
> > - WARN_ON(hrtimer_active(&dl_se->inactive_timer));
> > WARN_ON(dl_se->dl_non_contending);
> >
> > zerolag_time = dl_se->deadline -
> > @@ -269,7 +268,7 @@ static void task_non_contending(struct
> > task_struct *p)
> > * If the "0-lag time" already passed, decrease the active
> > * utilization now, instead of starting a timer
> > */
> > - if (zerolag_time < 0) {
> > + if ((zerolag_time < 0) ||
> > hrtimer_active(&dl_se->inactive_timer)) { if (dl_task(p))
> > sub_running_bw(dl_se, dl_rq);
> > if (!dl_task(p) || p->state == TASK_DEAD) {
> >
> >
> > The idea is that if the timer is active, we leave dl_non_contending
> > set to 0 (so that the timer handler does nothing), and we
> > immediately decrease the running bw.
> > I think this is OK, because this situation can happen only if the
> > task blocks, wakes up while the timer handler is running, and then
> > immediately blocks again - while the timer handler is still
> > running. So, the "zero lag time" cannot be too much in the future.
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Luca
> >
> > .
>
>
> Yeah, it looks good.
>
> I can do some experiments with it ,
>
> Do you have some testcases to help me with the test ?
I just tried the test you provided... I also have some other
SCHED_DEADLINE tests at https://github.com/lucabe72/ReclaimingTests but
I did not try them with this patch yet.
Claudio Scordino also had some SCHED_DEADLINE tests here:
https://github.com/evidence/test-sched-dl
Luca
