[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1294155781.2016.160.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 16:43:01 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 16/17] sched: Move the second half of ttwu() to
the remote cpu
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 16:18 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > I don't think so, nobody should be migrating a TASK_WAKING task.
>
> I am not sure...
>
> Suppose that p was TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and p->on_rq == 1 before, when
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() was called. To simplify, suppose that
> the caller is preempted right after it drops p->pi_lock and before
> it does stop_one_cpu(migration_cpu_stop).
>
> After that p can complete chedule() and deactivate itself.
>
> Now, try_to_wake_up() can set TASK_WAKING, choose another CPU,
> and do ttwu_queue_remote().
>
> Finally, the caller of set_cpus_allowed_ptr() resumes and
> schedules migration_cpu_stop.
But __migrate_task() will then find !p->on_rq and not actually do
anything.
> It is very possible I missed something, but what is the new
> locking rules for set_task_cpu() anyway? I mean, which rq->lock
> it needs?
In the patches I just posted: set_task_cpu(p, cpu) callers need to
either hold task_rq(p)->lock (the old rq) or p->pi_lock.
--
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