Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:45:21 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 2/9] sched/deadline: improve the tracking of active
 utilization
Message-ID: <20170327084520.GB10289@e106622-lin>
References: <1490327582-4376-1-git-send-email-luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
 <1490327582-4376-3-git-send-email-luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
 <20170324132041.6fxayfe3id4af3n5@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170324224715.4098dbfb@nowhere>
 <20170327071745.GA10289@e106622-lin>
 <20170327094342.3c686827@luca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170327094342.3c686827@luca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4060
Lines: 87

On 27/03/17 09:43, Luca Abeni wrote:
> Hi Juri,
> 
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:17:45 +0100
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > > In general I feel it would be nice to have a state diagram
> > > > included somewhere near these two functions. It would be nice to
> > > > not have to dig out the PDF every time.  
> > > 
> > > Ok... Since I am not good at ascii art, would it be ok to add a
> > > textual description? If yes, I'll add a comment like:
> > > "
> > > The utilization of a task is added to the runqueue's active
> > > utilization when the task becomes active (is enqueued in the
> > > runqueue), and is  
> > 
> > Is enqueued for the first time on a new period, maybe? It seems to be
> > contradictory w.r.t. what below (if wakeup before 0 lag time)
> > otherwise.
> I think it should be "is enqueued in the runqueue and was previously
> not active" (I did not write the "and was previously not active" to

Right.

> avoid complicanting the sentence even more... But this
> "simplification" was not a good idea :). The fact that this happens in a
> new period or not is (in my understanding) irrelevant...
> 
> 
> > > removed when the task becomes inactive. A task does not become
> > > immediately inactive when it blocks, but becomes inactive at the so
> > > called "0 lag time"; so, we setup the "inactive timer" to fire at
> > > the "0 lag time". When the "inactive timer" fires, the task
> > > utilization is removed from the runqueue's active utilization. If
> > > the task wakes up again on the same runqueue before the "0 lag
> > > time", the active utilization must not be changed and the "inactive
> > > timer" must be cancelled. If the task wakes up again on a different
> > > runqueue before the "0 lag time", then the task's utilization must
> > > be removed from the previous runqueue's active utilization and must
> > > be added to the new runqueue's active utilization.
> > > In order to avoid races between a task waking up on a runqueue
> > > while the "inactive timer" is running on a different CPU, the
> > > "dl_non_contending" flag is used to indicate that a task is not on
> > > a runqueue but is active (so, the flag is set when the task blocks
> > > and is cleared when the "inactive timer" fires or when the task
> > > wakes up). "
> > > (if this is ok, where can I add this comment?)
> > >   
> > 
> > Thanks for this Luca. Not sure it adds much to your text above, but we
> > might want to consider adding something like below?
> > 
> > --->8---  
> >            1st enqueue       +------------------+
> >                              |                  |
> >            +---------------->+ ACTIVEcontending |
> >            |                 |                  |
> >            |                 +----+------+------+
> >            |                      |      ^
> >            |                      |      |
> >   +--------+-------+              |      |
> >   |                |     dequeue  |      |  wakeup before
> >   |    INACTIVE    |              |      |  0 lag time
> >   |                |              |      |
> >   +--------+-------+              |      |
> >            ^                      |      |
> >            |                      V      |
> >            |                 +----+------+------+
> >            |                 |                  |
> >            +-----------------+ ACTIVEnonCONTEND |
> >                              |                  |
> >             0 lag time       +------------------+
> >             elapsed
> > --->8---  
> 
> I am not sure if introducing the "active non contending" name is a good
> idea or not (see my previous email), but I am not the best person to
> decide this... If people like this figure, I am more than happy to add
> it :)
> (but then maybe we can change "0 lag time elapsed" with "inactive timer
> fires" and we can display in the figure the state of the
> "dl_non_contending"/"inactive_timer_armed" flag)
> 

Sure. Let's see what people think about what you say in the other email
and I'll update the figure accordingly.