Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755272Ab0AMJdN (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:33:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755228Ab0AMJdM (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:33:12 -0500 Received: from ms01.sssup.it ([193.205.80.99]:34567 "EHLO sssup.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755201Ab0AMJdK (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 04:33:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC 8/12][PATCH] SCHED_DEADLINE: wait next instance syscall added. From: Raistlin To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel , michael trimarchi , Fabio Checconi , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Dhaval Giani , Johan Eker , "p.faure" , Chris Friesen , Steven Rostedt , Henrik Austad , Frederic Weisbecker , Darren Hart , Sven-Thorsten Dietrich , Claudio Scordino , Tommaso Cucinotta , "giuseppe.lipari" , Juri Lelli In-Reply-To: <1262010601.7135.113.camel@laptop> References: <1255707324.6228.448.camel@Palantir> <1255707898.6228.463.camel@Palantir> <1262010601.7135.113.camel@laptop> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-vyM0kkgGjeCG1N731EAj" Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:33:04 +0100 Message-ID: <1263375184.3853.6.camel@Palantir> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1995 Lines: 55 --=-vyM0kkgGjeCG1N731EAj Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 15:30 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > However, for SCHED_DEADLINE tasks, it should be the call with which eac= h > > job closes its current instance. In fact, in this case, the task is put= to > > sleep and, when it wakes up, the scheduler is informed that a new job > > arrived, saving the overhead that usually comes with a task activation > > to enforce maximum task bandwidth. >=20 > The changelog suggests (and a very brief looks seems to confirm) that > this code could be much smaller by using hrtimer_nanosleep(). >=20 > The implementation as presented seems to only call ->wait_interval() > when the timer arms, which seems like a bug, we should always call it, > regardless of whether we're on a period boundary. >=20 Ok, thanks, I'll look carefully at that! The current code is an attempt of mine to replicate the behaviour of clock_nanosleep, but you're definitely right here, it can be done much better. Thanks and regards, Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa (Italy) http://blog.linux.it/raistlin / raistlin@ekiga.net / dario.faggioli@jabber.org --=-vyM0kkgGjeCG1N731EAj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAktNk08ACgkQk4XaBE3IOsQQ1gCeKl1m6UhDUrG4/ap99Tbs2txe XU8An1yj9cJKPNIxNKxC/jqvTMjgwFl5 =zIE7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-vyM0kkgGjeCG1N731EAj-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/