Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:1287:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id d7csp6275802pxv; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:23:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0RzIq5xNaS0nBu08GSIVEjBffSuC7OatTIrRNYCBgqqo76dINIn3o9mXbiTaxRIzarRDj X-Received: by 2002:a5e:9918:: with SMTP id t24mr5021444ioj.24.1627579437108; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:23:57 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1627579437; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=KzrlByX0vxuDnyj55f/o2RWzmXl/0o/AKmjFXOKOjEh8u3vUnqndjSYUY26iIGUbsW yCzZzYhvGRHYjgAOLGhT9S/wYjItWq//5b88x6aj2nxvxuD75lVoQDyeEjcin/ggjDD0 1l5V2qfJ6SevK5e4efwWhdf9Or/JGR3s3lAzXcpxZ41R67hRWzvPPMGwsTywMB45edXf SdQjeF5NmbTYm02orZFWvUSvMnGIyWHJ4t4jy17zi4JI6rEDkG8En/4ffUo4+wWgyF/g LwKutnPUbCVolrHBReexTjN3wfI5HDz51/z28YiRoh9URGrbv6cQq/J1ABQRJhXlDowi NYSQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:content-language :in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:references :cc:to:subject; bh=QAKIM6YKu7YThxchb1XvzKrtQCwHwI1kU/vthzk1O/s=; b=TYCbGdhBiFMVzhECMP8DWuv77at0eoSyEMTBpaunT94AlJWJoJgUJQIckL6BsmTuEf SkUp/Mfv2zSkKDgCCyXEwgBx0DcrBgsctCE+YVaUdbhjT4uft2p85nFfdnwJjKtkZkuY u90a48+6aF4CJh96e4KMsgU7rmojSK21UjE4xvCmved/B3D7h+XySIWoOIv0qWab1mgY DDjo65Hy41tsI8Bis1h8X9fYCsxWMDXY0mDfdLSphkbxQfwHRr00voj46gTlS4aKP74H 7GQf5Vy1sqmRcxBZqJOJCb6S1r6DZOsk8aO99fjhHT2CJv6zIB1vrDwMcEEQcRoiGRPM fecg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x19si3935395ioa.74.2021.07.29.10.23.44; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:23:57 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229863AbhG2RVO (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:21:14 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:53484 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229657AbhG2RVN (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 13:21:13 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D3D71FB; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:21:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.6] (unknown [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7E4913F73D; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 10:21:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: Don't report SCHED_FLAG_SUGOV in sched_getattr() To: Juri Lelli , Quentin Perret Cc: Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Vincent Guittot , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , Daniel Bristot de Oliveira , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20210727101103.2729607-1-qperret@google.com> <20210727101103.2729607-3-qperret@google.com> From: Dietmar Eggemann Message-ID: <97c06d07-bb6a-e8b5-b230-390edd8bcfbe@arm.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 19:21:03 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 28/07/2021 14:36, Juri Lelli wrote: > On 28/07/21 10:39, Quentin Perret wrote: >> On Wednesday 28 Jul 2021 at 11:12:03 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote: [...] >>> Maybe we can do this in the previous patch so that it's kept confined to >>> deadline bits? >> >> That works too, it just felt like this could happen again if we start >> using non-standard flags outside of deadline for any reason at some >> point in the future. But no strong opinion really. > > Yeah, I also see this point. :) > > So no prob with me to keep it in core.c as you do here. > > Best, > Juri > I would vote for not exporting SCHED_FLAG_SUGOV from __getparam_dl() in patch 1/2 to underpin the idea that this flag is a hack. @ -2759,7 +2759,7 @@ void __getparam_dl(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_attr *attr) attr->sched_deadline = dl_se->dl_deadline; attr->sched_period = dl_se->dl_period; attr->sched_flags &= ~SCHED_DL_FLAGS; - attr->sched_flags |= dl_se->flags; + attr->sched_flags |= dl_se->flags & ~SCHED_FLAG_SUGOV;