[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1259197270.6186.17.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:01:10 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: fix set_task_cpu() and provide an unlocked
runqueue variant
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 19:27 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 13:09 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > sched: fix set_task_cpu() and provide an unlocked runqueue variant.
> >
> > set_task_cpu() falsifies migration stats by unconditionally generating migration
> > stats whether a task's cpu actually changed or not. As used in copy_process(),
> > the runqueue is unlocked, so we need to provide an unlocked variant which does
> > the locking to provide a write barrier.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
> > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
> >
> > ---
>
> > +void set_task_cpu_unlocked(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int new_cpu)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + struct rq *rq, *new_rq = cpu_rq(new_cpu);
> > +
> > + smp_wmb();
> > + rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
> > + update_rq_clock(rq);
> > + if (rq != new_rq)
> > + update_rq_clock(new_rq);
> > + set_task_cpu(p, new_cpu);
> > + task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
> > +}
>
> I've got to ask, what's that barrier for?
It's a leftover from frustrated bug hunting.
-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