Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180728002409.5781-1-xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
 <ef0e1185-51d6-0707-cda4-6f2ea987b651@linux.alibaba.com> <CAM_iQpVeK2VQDuahreZC2-L4eEzx0WtD8Bz=oHH68VSAiMqLGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <fad5ebe6-ec49-c67b-7b4f-78a413723aa8@linux.alibaba.com> <xm26ftzz8h0r.fsf@bsegall-linux.svl.corp.google.com>
 <CAM_iQpXGCqo9AAp2kpSKk9sHx0ZRK7JU_c07sWh4vR9kFQ+LxA@mail.gmail.com> <xm267ela80qn.fsf@bsegall-linux.svl.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xm267ela80qn.fsf@bsegall-linux.svl.corp.google.com>
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Aug 2018 14:56:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUA8mn_kTGsJJDKBH0gF1tErg3RnuG0bYd6amH2T_YLHw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: sync expires_seq in distribute_cfs_runtime()
To:     Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Cc:     Xunlei Pang <xlpang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:17 AM <bsegall@google.com> wrote:
> Yes, in practice what's actually going to happen is that the
> runtime_remaining will be put to 1 by distribute, the cfs_rq will be
> unthrottled, and then when it runs it will go negative immediately and
> hit the negative check in expires, so expires_seq being wrong will not
> actually matter. In addition, the worst thing that will happen if one of
> the account_cfs_rq_runtime(cfs_rq, 0) paths is hit first is that it will
> lose 1ns of quota, which also doesn't really matter.

Ah, I see.

Thanks!