On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 12:04 +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:

Why use pi_of() in above cases?

For the first, in case the macro is called while the task is actually
boosted, we then might continue to use that even after such task gets
deboosted?

Mmh, yeah thinking about it again it doesn't make much sense considering we are
not tracking when a task is deboosted, unless that always corresponds to a
replenish. Thought that doesn't seem the case..

For the second, current PI implementation (even if admittedly not ideal)
uses donor's static dl_runtime to replenish boosted task runtime, but
then accounting is performed again the task dynamic runtime, not the
donor's (this all will hopefully change soon with proxy exec..)?

At this point I should probably just ignore the pi_of() right?
I'm assuming the original (non-boosted) parameters are more conservative anyway
so it shouldn't be a problem for the model.

Thanks,
Gabriele