On 15/03/23 14:49, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 03/15/23 12:18, Juri Lelli wrote:
...
> > +void inc_dl_tasks_cs(struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > + struct cpuset *cs = task_cs(p);
>
> nit:
>
> I *think* task_cs() assumes rcu_read_lock() is held, right?
>
> Would it make sense to WARN_ON(!rcu_read_lock_held()) to at least
> annotate the deps?
Think we have that check in task_css_set_check()?
> Or maybe task_cs() should do that..
>
> > +
> > + cs->nr_deadline_tasks++;
> > +}
> > +
> > +void dec_dl_tasks_cs(struct task_struct *p)
> > +{
> > + struct cpuset *cs = task_cs(p);
>
> nit: ditto
>
> > +
> > + cs->nr_deadline_tasks--;
> > +}
> > +
...
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > index 5902cbb5e751..d586a8440348 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > @@ -7683,6 +7683,16 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct task_struct *p,
> > goto unlock;
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > + * In case a task is setscheduled to SCHED_DEADLINE, or if a task is
> > + * moved to a different sched policy, we need to keep track of that on
> > + * its cpuset (for correct bandwidth tracking).
> > + */
> > + if (dl_policy(policy) && !dl_task(p))
> > + inc_dl_tasks_cs(p);
> > + else if (dl_task(p) && !dl_policy(policy))
> > + dec_dl_tasks_cs(p);
> > +
>
> Would it be better to use switched_to_dl()/switched_from_dl() instead to
> inc/dec_dl_tasks_cs()?
Ah, makes sense. I'll play with this.
Thanks,
Juri
