From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753151AbdBMQV5 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:21:57 -0500
Received: from mail-qk0-f179.google.com ([209.85.220.179]:34130 "EHLO
        mail-qk0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1752744AbdBMQV4 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 13 Feb 2017 11:21:56 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/deadline: Throttle a constrained deadline task
 activated after the deadline
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
References: <cover.1486754348.git.bristot@redhat.com>
 <a11b216b344a7ccdf7e3c89a6c8617bb446b91f7.1486754348.git.bristot@redhat.com>
 <20170213103303.0e3b3953@gandalf.local.home>
 <193849bc-19a8-da00-ee32-9e1140de1a5d@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
From: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <09fb68f4-444d-3350-3698-2db2af0f5983@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 17:21:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <193849bc-19a8-da00-ee32-9e1140de1a5d@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 02/13/2017 04:46 PM, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 04:33 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>> +static inline bool dl_is_constrained(struct sched_dl_entity *dl_se)
>>> +{
>>> +	return dl_se->dl_runtime < dl_se->dl_period;
>>> +}
>>> +
>> Is it ever appropriate for a dl task to have runtime == period? What
>> purpose would that serve? Just run the task as FIFO higher than
>> everything else.
>>
>> Or was this suppose to be dl_deadline < dl_period?
> Oooooops, my bad :-(, this was supposed to be dl_deadline < dl_period.

As

+       if (dl_time_before(dl_se->deadline, rq_clock(rq)) &&
+           dl_time_before(rq_clock(rq), dl_next_period(dl_se))) {


is never true for implicit deadline tasks, the problem was not causing
further logical issues (apart from being conceptually obviously totally
wrong, and causes the check to be called without the need to... me--).

-- Daniel