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:   Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:14:26 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To:     Peng Liu <iwtbavbm@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/deadline: dome some cleanup for push_dl_task()
Message-ID: <20200724071426.GD14912@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20200706160442.GA19741@iZj6chx1xj0e0buvshuecpZ>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200706160442.GA19741@iZj6chx1xj0e0buvshuecpZ>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 07/07/20 00:04, Peng Liu wrote:
> 'commit 840d719604b0 ("sched/deadline: Update rq_clock of later_rq when pushing a task")'
> introduced the update_rq_clock() to fix the "used-before-update" bug.
> 
> 'commit f4904815f97a ("sched/deadline: Fix double accounting of rq/running bw in push & pull")'
> took away the bug source(add_running_bw()).
> 
> We no longer need to update rq_clock in advance, let activate_task()
> worry about that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peng Liu <iwtbavbm@gmail.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/deadline.c | 8 +-------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> index 504d2f51b0d6..c3fa11f84d93 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
> @@ -2104,13 +2104,7 @@ static int push_dl_task(struct rq *rq)
>  
>  	deactivate_task(rq, next_task, 0);
>  	set_task_cpu(next_task, later_rq->cpu);
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * 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);
> -	activate_task(later_rq, next_task, ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK);
> +	activate_task(later_rq, next_task, 0);
>  	ret = 1;

The change looks good to me, since now add_running_bw() is called later
by enqueue_task_dl(), but rq_clock has already been updated by core's
enqueue_task().

Daniel, Dietmar, a second pair of eyes (since you authored the commits
above)?

I'd chage subject to something like "sched/deadline: Stop updating
rq_clock before pushing a task".

Thanks,

Juri