[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070718163559.GA837@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:35:59 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: a bogus task_running() check in try_to_wake_up() ?
On 07/17, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru> wrote:
>
> > try_to_wake_up:
> >
> > if (p->se.on_rq)
> > goto out_running;
> >
> > ...
> >
> > if (unlikely(task_running(rq, p)))
> > goto out_activate;
> >
> > How it possible that rq->curr has on_rq == 0 ?
> >
> > AFAICS, this can only happen if this task is rq->idle. But idle
> > threads should not sleep, we have a special "scheduling from the idle
> > thread!" check in schedule().
>
> it's also possible if an arch uses __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW,
> right?
Ah, got it. I guess you meant __ARCH_WANT_UNLOCKED_CTXSW though.
In that case schedule() drops rq->lock before the context switch, but doesn't
clear ->oncpu. So, task_running(p) means we must not activate "p" on another
CPU, otherwise it could be scheduled before the switch-in-progress completes.
Thanks a lot!
Oleg.
-
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