[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080610171957.GB6038@tv-sign.ru>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:19:57 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about task_struct::state
On 06/10, Dhaval Giani wrote:
>
> sched.h has a comment in task_struct
>
> volatile long state; /* -1 unrunnable, 0 runnable, >0 stopped */
>
> After some searching, I've not been able to figure out how state can
> become -1 (or unrunnable). Can you let me know how that happens?
>
> If it cannot reach that state, then maybe this patch is needed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/sched.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/sched.h 2008-06-10 21:13:02.000000000 +0530
> +++ linux-2.6/include/linux/sched.h 2008-06-10 21:14:44.000000000 +0530
> @@ -1024,7 +1024,7 @@ struct sched_rt_entity {
> };
>
> struct task_struct {
> - volatile long state; /* -1 unrunnable, 0 runnable, >0 stopped */
> + volatile long state; /* 0 runnable, >0 stopped */
I think you are right, the comment is wrong (obsolete?).
Perhaps it is better to just remove it, or add a note about TASK_RUNNING/etc
above. ">0 stopped" looks a bit confusing too.
I'd suggest you to change the subject and send the patch to Andrew.
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