Re: [PATCH v9 4/8] sched/deadline: Fix bandwidth accounting at all levels after offline migration

[Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>]

On 7/22/19 2:28 PM, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 22/07/19 13:07, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 7/19/19 3:59 PM, Juri Lelli wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> @@ -557,6 +558,38 @@ static struct rq *dl_task_offline_migration(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p
>>>  		double_lock_balance(rq, later_rq);
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>> +	if (p->dl.dl_non_contending || p->dl.dl_throttled) {
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * Inactive timer is armed (or callback is running, but
>>> +		 * waiting for us to release rq locks). In any case, when it
>>> +		 * will file (or continue), it will see running_bw of this
>>
>> s/file/fire ?
> 
> Yep.
> 
>>> +		 * task migrated to later_rq (and correctly handle it).
>>
>> Is this because of dl_task_timer()->enqueue_task_dl()->task_contending()
>> setting dl_se->dl_non_contending = 0 ?
> 
> No, this is related to inactive_task_timer() callback. Since the task is
> migrated (by this function calling set_task_cpu()) because a CPU hotplug
> operation happened, we need to reflect this w.r.t. running_bw, or
> inactive_task_timer() might sub from the new CPU and cause running_bw to
> underflow.

I was more referring to the '... it will see running_bw of thus task
migrated to later_rq ...) and specifically to the HOW the timer
callback can detect this. I should have made this clearer.
inactive_task_timer() checks if (dl_se->dl_non_contending == 0) so I
thought I have to find the place where dl_se->dl_non_contending is set 0?