[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1156192388.6665.29.camel@Homer.simpson.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:33:08 +0000
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: vatsa@...ibm.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Sam Vilain <sam@...ain.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kirill Korotaev <dev@...nvz.org>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ibm.com>, sekharan@...ibm.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, nagar@...son.ibm.com,
matthltc@...ibm.com, dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] CPU controller - V1
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 22:15 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Hence task_rq(awakening)->curr == current, which should be sufficient to
Ah, ok. Thanks. I should have read more of the code instead of
pondering the text.
> resched(current), although I think there is a bug in current code
> (irrespective of these patches):
>
> try_to_wake_up() :
>
> ...
>
> if (!sync || cpu != this_cpu) {
> if (TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR(p, rq))
> resched_task(rq->curr);
> }
> success = 1;
>
> ...
>
> TASK_PREEMPTS_CURR() is examined and resched_task() is called only if
> (cpu != this_cpu). What about the case (cpu == this_cpu) - who will
> call resched_task() on current? I had expected the back-end of interrupt
> handling to do that, but didnt find any code to do so.
Looks ok to me. Everything except sync && cpu == this_cpu checks.
-Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists