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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] sched/deadline: Fix double accounting of rq/running
 bw in push_dl_task()
To:     luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <Valentin.Schneider@arm.com>,
        Qais Yousef <Qais.Yousef@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20190726082756.5525-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20190726082756.5525-2-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20190726153002.5e49c666@sweethome>
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Message-ID: <213a5bb3-208a-b8dc-0c80-175ceb4ae1dd@arm.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:00:58 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190726153002.5e49c666@sweethome>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 7/26/19 2:30 PM, luca abeni wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 26 Jul 2019 09:27:52 +0100
> Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> @@ -2121,17 +2121,13 @@ static int push_dl_task(struct rq *rq)
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	deactivate_task(rq, next_task, 0);
>> -	sub_running_bw(&next_task->dl, &rq->dl);
>> -	sub_rq_bw(&next_task->dl, &rq->dl);
>>  	set_task_cpu(next_task, later_rq->cpu);
>> -	add_rq_bw(&next_task->dl, &later_rq->dl);
>>  
>>  	/*
>>  	 * Update the later_rq clock here, because the clock is used
>>  	 * by the cpufreq_update_util() inside __add_running_bw().
>>  	 */
>>  	update_rq_clock(later_rq);
>> -	add_running_bw(&next_task->dl, &later_rq->dl);
> 
> Looking at the code again and thinking a little bit more about this
> issue, I suspect a similar change is needed in pull_dl_task() too, no?

The code looks the same. Let me try to test it. I will add it in v2 then.