Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:25:21 +0100
From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation
Message-ID: <20161109162521.1e38573a@utopia>
In-Reply-To: <20161108200229.GA24076@ARMvm>
References: <1477317998-7487-1-git-send-email-luca.abeni@unitn.it>
        <1477317998-7487-2-git-send-email-luca.abeni@unitn.it>
        <20161101164451.GA2769@ARMvm>
        <20161101221014.27eb441a@utopia>
        <20161108175635.GF16920@e106622-lin>
        <20161108191730.29c54a98@utopia>
        <20161108185309.GG16920@e106622-lin>
        <20161108200956.35b3e7c7@utopia>
        <20161108200229.GA24076@ARMvm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1526
Lines: 39

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 20:02:29 +0000
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > So, it actually matters for next patch,
> > > not here. But, maybe we want to do things clean from start?  
> > You mean, because patch 2/6 adds
> > +       if (hrtimer_active(&p->dl.inactive_timer)) {
> > +               raw_spin_lock_irq(&task_rq(p)->lock);
> > +               sub_running_bw(&p->dl, dl_rq_of_se(&p->dl));
> > +               raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task_rq(p)->lock);
> > +       }
> > in task_dead_dl()? I suspect this hunk is actually unneeded (worse, it
> > is wrong :). I am trying to remember why it is there, but I cannot find
> > any reason... In the next days, I'll run some tests to check if that
> > hunk is actually needed. If yes, then I'll modify patch 1/6 as you
> > suggest; if it is not needed, I'll remove it from patch 2/6 and I'll
> > not do this change to patch 1/6... Is this ok?
> >   
> 
> I guess yes, if we don't need to differentiate.
Ok; so, I ran some tests (and I found some old notes of mine). The
modifications to task_dead_dl() mentioned above are not actually needed;
I added them as a preparation for a change needed by patch 3... But I
now think this was an error; I am reworking this part of the code
(removing changes from task_dead_dl() and adding a "p->state == TASK_DEAD"
check in the inactive timer handler).

I'll post an update for patches 2 and 3 in few days, after I finish
some more tests.


				Luca

> Maybe just add a comment as I  am saying above?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Juri