[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101215185929.GA18803@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:59:29 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] reduce runqueue lock contention
On 12/13, Frank Rowand wrote:
>
> I have not been able to make sense of the task_running() check in
> try_to_wake_up(), even with that clue. The try_to_wake_up() code in
> question is:
> ...
>
> What am I missing, or is the task_running() test not needed?
I am afraid I can misuderstood this all, including the question ;)
But, with __ARCH_WANT_UNLOCKED_CTXSW task_running() checks ->oncpu.
However, schedule() drops rq->lock after prev was deactivated but
before it clears prev->oncpu.
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