[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1248856884.6987.3043.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:41:24 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: check for pushing rt tasks after all
scheduling
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 00:21 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> plain text document attachment
> (0001-sched-check-for-pushing-rt-tasks-after-all-schedulin.patch)
> From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
>
> The current method for pushing RT tasks after scheduling only
> happens after a context switch. But we found cases where a task
> is set up on a run queue to be pushed but the push never happens
> because the schedule chooses the same task.
>
> This bug was found with the help of Gregory Haskins and the use of
> ftrace (trace_printk). It tooks several days for both of us analyzing
> the code and the trace output to find this.
> + if (current->sched_class->needs_post_schedule)
> + post_schedule = current->sched_class->needs_post_schedule(rq);
> + if (post_schedule)
> + current->sched_class->post_schedule(rq);
Why can't we omit that first call, and do the second unconditionally,
using storage in the class rq to save state?
--
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