[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1300264340.2250.75.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:32:20 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: frank.rowand@...sony.com
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
"Rowand, Frank" <Frank_Rowand@...yusa.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/22] sched: Move the second half of ttwu() to the
remote cpu
On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 17:44 -0800, Frank Rowand wrote:
> > @@ -6287,6 +6342,7 @@ migration_call(struct notifier_block *nf
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> > case CPU_DYING:
>
> Should pi_lock be locked here, so that additional wake ups can not
> be put on the wake list in the window after sched_ttwu_pending()
> completes, and before set_rq_offline(rq) is called? If so, then
> of course unlock pi_lock after the matching
> "raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);"
The cpu should be offline already, so select_task_rq() will never return
it and hence no new tasks should end up on this list.
> > + sched_ttwu_pending();
> > /* Update our root-domain */
--
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