On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted text
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:22:14 +0200 Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:42 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2007-09-24 at 12:24 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>
>>>> how about something like:
>>>>
>>>>  s64 delta = (s64)(vruntime - min_vruntime);
>>>>  if (delta > 0)
>>>>   min_vruntime += delta;
>>>>
>>>> That would rid us of most of the funny conditionals there.
>>>
>>> That still left me with negative min_vruntimes.  The pinned hogs didn't
>>> lock my box up, but I quickly got the below, so hastily killed it.
>>
>> Shouldn't the max() in place_entity() be the max_vruntime() that my
>> lysdexia told me it was when I looked at it earlier? ;-)
>>
>
> probably, my tree doesn't have that max anymore so I'm not sure.
>

Last time I looked, I thought the max() in place_entity() was fine and the 
problem seemed to be in set_task_cpu() that was causing the negative 
vruntimes:

         if (likely(new_rq->cfs.min_vruntime))
                 p->se.vruntime -= old_rq->cfs.min_vruntime -
                                                 new_rq->cfs.min_vruntime;

I think it's fine we get rid of sync_vruntime(). I need to think more 
about how to make global fairness work based on this--it seems to be more 
complicated than if we had sync_vruntime().

   tong
-
unsubscribe notice
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/