[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinfGL3=8LKTx3gCg_V9DfXi44E2PxPd-vQVfALU@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 14:09:28 +0800
From: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, samu.p.onkalo@...ia.com,
mingo@...e.hu,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Bug in scheduler when using rt_mutex
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 12:35 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
>
>> cfs_rq->curr != se is always true.
>
> If that were always true, we'd illegally enqueue a running task.
I'm sorry that I'm not express myself correctly.
The conclusion of (cfs_rq->curr != se is always true) is not
self-contained. IOW, it's based on one condition which is
(task_of(se) != rq->curr). So what I want to say is:
task_of(se) != rq->curr ==> cfs_rq_of(se)->curr != se
So,
!running ==> cfs_rq_of(se)->curr != se
Is this more clear?
Thanks,
Yong
--
Only stand for myself
--
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