On 04/02/19 13:45, Waiman Long wrote: > On 02/04/2019 07:18 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 10:02:11AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > >> On 18/01/19 17:46, Juri Lelli wrote: > >>> On 18/01/19 08:17, Tejun Heo wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 09:47:34AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> v6 of a series of patches, originally authored by Mathieu, with the intent > >>>>> of fixing a long standing issue of SCHED_DEADLINE bandwidth accounting. > >>>>> As originally reported by Steve [1], when hotplug and/or (certain) > >>>>> cpuset reconfiguration operations take place, DEADLINE bandwidth > >>>>> accounting information is lost since root domains are destroyed and > >>>>> recreated. > >>>>> > >>>>> Mathieu's approach is based on restoring bandwidth accounting info on > >>>>> the newly created root domains by iterating through the (DEADLINE) tasks > >>>>> belonging to the configured cpuset(s). > >>>>> > >>>>> Apart from some minor refactoring needed to rebase the set on top of > >>>>> Waiman Long's cpuset for cgroup series (now mainline), two changes worth > >>>>> of notice: > >>>> Generally looks good to me but can you please ask Waiman to take a > >>>> look? > >>> Argh! I should have cc-ed him in the first instance. > >>> > >>> Thanks for reviewing. > >>> > >>> Waiman, do you see anything wrong with this series? Thanks! > >>> > >>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190117084739.17078-1-juri.lelli@xxxxxxxxxx/ > >> Ping? > > Basically looks OK to me; wlthough I think I prefer the callback_lock / > > rq->lock ordering to be the other way around. > > > > Waiman, you OK with this one? > > Sorry for the late reply. I reviewed the patchset and don't see anything > wrong with it. However, my knowledge of the internal operation of the > deadline scheduler is limited. Thanks for reviewing!
