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

[Juri Lelli]

On 04/11/2012 03:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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

Well, I tried my best to not spoil to much the work made by
Dario & Co. :-).

Anyway, thanks!

- Juri
--
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/