[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1295503938.8027.59.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 07:12:18 +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>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in scheduler when using rt_mutex
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:30 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> 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?
We don't need to play any games with it afaiks, just normalize it, and
the rest is taken care of automatically.
> IOW, I wonder if we should play with place_entity() at some point.
If the task returns as a sleeper, place entity() will be called when it
is awakened, so it's sleep credit will be clipped as usual. So vruntime
can be much less than min_vruntime at class exit time, and it doesn't
matter, clipping on wakeup after re-entry takes care of it.. if that's
what you were thinking about.
-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