Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:7 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:7;
Date:   Fri, 3 Nov 2023 08:11:40 +0100
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched/core: Provide a method to check if a task
 is PI-boosted.
Message-ID: <ZUSdLMQn0GZ+/T1E@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20230804113039.419794-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20230804113039.419794-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <ZUNsSqHiYu8WTHBb@localhost.localdomain>
 <20231102160319.4rjz7ujq@linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20231102160319.4rjz7ujq@linutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk

On 02/11/23 17:03, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2023-11-02 10:30:50 [+0100], Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi,
> Hi,
> 
> > Apologies for noticing only now, but I believe this is still part of the
> > 6.6-rt patches and I've got the below question to ask.
> 
> I'm not sure if we want this. I do have an alternative solution in the
> meantime.

Ah, OK. Guess what below is moot then. :) Will be watching for the
alternative solution to show up.
> 
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -8886,6 +8886,21 @@ static inline void preempt_dynamic_init(void) { }
> > >  
> > >  #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_DYNAMIC */
> > >  
> > > +/*
> > > + * task_is_pi_boosted - Check if task has been PI boosted.
> > > + * @p:	Task to check.
> > > + *
> > > + * Return true if task is subject to priority inheritance.
> > > + */
> > > +bool task_is_pi_boosted(const struct task_struct *p)
> > > +{
> > > +	int prio = p->prio;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!rt_prio(prio))
> > > +		return false;
> > > +	return prio != p->normal_prio;
> > 
> > Does this need to also take DEADLINE tasks into consideration? We don't
> > change priority when they are boosted, only pi_se changes (please check
> > is_dl_boosted()).
> 
> If we want this, then probably yes.
> Isn't task_struct::prio for the DL (boosted) task set to 0? While the RT
> priority go from 1…MAX_RT_PRIO - 1.

But then we can also have DL on DL boosting and in this case only the
pi_se changes while prio stays the same. But, again, looks like this is
moot anyway.

Thanks!
Juri