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;
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 16:01:58 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Lichao Liu <liulichao@loongson.cn>, mingo@redhat.com,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: Don't active rt throtting when no running cfs
 task
Message-ID: <20200616140158.GY2531@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200616123729.153430-1-liulichao@loongson.cn>
 <20200616095027.1a2048d0@oasis.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200616095027.1a2048d0@oasis.local.home>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:50:27AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:37:29 +0800
> Lichao Liu <liulichao@loongson.cn> wrote:
> 
> > Active rt throtting will dequeue rt_rq from rq at least 50ms,
> > When there is no running cfs task, do we still active it?
> > 
> 
> This is something I would like to have.
> 
> Peter, what's your thought on this?

I'd love to just delete all of this.. that said, I'm not sure this
change makes sense, because it doesn't deal sanely with the case where
the task will appear right after we did this.

The right thing to do is that fair deadline server thing.