Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
References: <20200408095012.3819-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> <20200408095012.3819-3-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> <jhjeesyw96u.mognet@arm.com> <20200408153032.447e098d@nowhere> <jhjblo2vx60.mognet@arm.com> <31620965-e1e7-6854-ad46-8192ee4b41af@arm.com> <20200414114032.wigdlnegism6qqns@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 26.3
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
To:     Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Alessio Balsini <balsini@google.com>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched/deadline: Improve admission control for asymmetric CPU capacities
In-reply-to: <20200414114032.wigdlnegism6qqns@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 15:29:00 +0100
Message-ID: <jhjy2qyrvir.mognet@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 14/04/20 12:40, Qais Yousef wrote:
>
> I haven't followed this discussion closely, so I could be missing something
> here.
>
> In sched_cpu_dying() we call set_rq_offline() which clears the cpu in
> rq->rd->online.
>
> So the way I read the code
>
>       rd->online = cpumask_and(rd->span, cpu_active_mask)
>
> But I could have easily missed some detail.
>

sched_cpu_dying() is wayyyy below sched_cpu_deactivate(). This doesn't help
at all for the dl_cpu_busy() check in sched_cpu_deactivate().

> Regardless, it seems to me that DL is working around something not right in the
> definition of rd->span or using the wrong variable.
>

What DL is doing now is fine, it only needs to be aligned with the active
mask (which it is). We're making things a bit trickier by adding capacity
values into the mix.

> My 2p :-). I have to go back and read the discussion in more detail.
>
> Thanks