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, 6 Oct 2020 01:06:07 +0800
From:   Peng Liu <iwtbavbm@gmail.com>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc:     mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com,
        mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
        raistlin@linux.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] sched/deadline: Fix sched_dl_global_validate()
Message-ID: <20201005170607.GA24115@iZj6chx1xj0e0buvshuecpZ>
References: <20200925162032.GA9692@iZj6chx1xj0e0buvshuecpZ>
 <20201005091100.GA4352@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201005091100.GA4352@localhost.localdomain>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 05, 2020 at 11:11:00AM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:

...

> >  	/*
> >  	 * Here we want to check the bandwidth not being set to some
> >  	 * value smaller than the currently allocated bandwidth in
> >  	 * any of the root_domains.
> > -	 *
> > -	 * FIXME: Cycling on all the CPUs is overdoing, but simpler than
> > -	 * cycling on root_domains... Discussion on different/better
> > -	 * solutions is welcome!
> 
> So, this patch changes 2 things: it actually fixes the problem and it
> optimizes scanning of root domains. Even though the changes are limited,
> I'd be more comfortable if we split them in two (fix + optimization).
> 
> Would you be up for doing it?

OK, I will split them.

> 
> >  struct dl_bandwidth {
> >  	raw_spinlock_t		dl_runtime_lock;
> > @@ -801,6 +795,8 @@ struct root_domain {
> >  	struct dl_bw		dl_bw;
> >  	struct cpudl		cpudl;
> >  
> > +	u64			visit_gen;
> > +
> 
> I think this deserves a comment explaining what it is and how it's used.
> 
> Also, do we really need an u64? Maybe an smaller type would be OK as
> well and could fit in the 4 bytes hole that seems available after
> dlo_count, I'm thinking.
> 
> Thanks,
> Juri
> 

u32 is also fine, after all consecutively 2^32 - 1 times validation
failure followed by a success in sched_dl_bandwidth_validate() is still
a very very unlikely case.

On a 64-bit machine, dlo_count should be aligned on a 8 bytes boundary,
there would be a 4 bytes hole between dlo_mask and dl_bw, put the new
member there seems reasonable. I'm OK with this.