Re: [PATCH 05/16] sched: SCHED_DEADLINE policy implementation.

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 2012-04-06 at 09:14 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:

> +static void replenish_dl_entity(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
> +{
> +	struct dl_rq *dl_rq = dl_rq_of_se(dl_se);
> +	struct rq *rq = rq_of_dl_rq(dl_rq);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We Keep moving the deadline away until we get some

s/Keep/keep/

> +	 * available runtime for the entity. This ensures correct
> +	 * handling of situations where the runtime overrun is
> +	 * arbitrary large.
> +	 */
> +	while (dl_se->runtime <= 0) {
> +		dl_se->deadline += dl_se->dl_deadline;
> +		dl_se->runtime += dl_se->dl_runtime;
> +	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * At this point, the deadline really should be "in
> +	 * the future" with respect to rq->clock. If it's
> +	 * not, we are, for some reason, lagging too much!
> +	 * Anyway, after having warn userspace abut that,
> +	 * we still try to keep the things running by
> +	 * resetting the deadline and the budget of the
> +	 * entity.
> +	 */
> +	if (dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, rq->clock)) {
> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> +		dl_se->deadline = rq->clock + dl_se->dl_deadline;
> +		dl_se->runtime = dl_se->dl_runtime;
> +	}
> +}
> +

I just finished reviewing patches 1-5, and have yet to find anything
wrong with them (except for these typos). I'll continue my review, and
then I'll start testing them.

Good work (so far ;-)

-- Steve


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/