On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 02:46:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:16:30AM +0200, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c index fbfc3f1d368a..8b50eea4b607 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c +++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c @@ -2090,8 +2090,14 @@ static int push_dl_task(struct rq *rq) sub_rq_bw(&next_task->dl, &rq->dl); set_task_cpu(next_task, later_rq->cpu); add_rq_bw(&next_task->dl, &later_rq->dl);
- /*
* Update the later_rq clock here, because the clock is used
* by the cpufreq_update_util() inside __add_running_bw().
*/
- update_rq_clock(later_rq); add_running_bw(&next_task->dl, &later_rq->dl);
- activate_task(later_rq, next_task, 0);
- activate_task(later_rq, next_task, ENQUEUE_NOCLOCK); ret = 1;
resched_curr(later_rq);
Why isn't push_rt_task() affected by the very same issue?
Aah, I see, its the add_running_bw() think; for which RT doesn't have a counter-part.