[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1295419041.8017.120.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:37:21 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
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, 2011-01-19 at 14:09 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> 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.
Human communication methods are all buggy as hell :)
> 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?
Yeah.
-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