[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110103180534.GA16502@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 19:05:34 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 08/17] sched: Drop the rq argument to
sched_class::select_task_rq()
On 12/24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> @@ -2680,24 +2681,17 @@ void wake_up_new_task(struct task_struct
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> struct rq *rq;
> - int cpu __maybe_unused = get_cpu();
Wait, I think this not right.
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> rq = task_rq_lock(p, &flags);
> - p->state = TASK_WAKING;
>
> /*
> * Fork balancing, do it here and not earlier because:
> * - cpus_allowed can change in the fork path
> * - any previously selected cpu might disappear through hotplug
> - *
> - * We set TASK_WAKING so that select_task_rq() can drop rq->lock
> - * without people poking at ->cpus_allowed.
> */
> - cpu = select_task_rq(rq, p, SD_BALANCE_FORK, 0);
> - set_task_cpu(p, cpu);
> + set_task_cpu(p, select_task_rq(p, SD_BALANCE_FORK, 0));
>
> - p->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
We need preempt_disable() to protect us against CPU hotplug. This task
was never activated, it won't be found/migrated if that CPU goes away
before we take task_rq_lock().
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