[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikEwgMzco2fHT668Mg3fC-T3EBMUgQQqW-Ojj-Y@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:30:47 +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>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in scheduler when using rt_mutex
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> wrote:
> or the task is enqueued
> at it's last offset as usual for runnable tasks.
But shouldn't we task the tasks as WAKEUP, through the task has been
waked on other sched_class?
IOW, I wonder if we should play with place_entity() at some point.
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