[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1306430264.2497.88.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 19:17:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] "sched: Remove rq->lock from the first half of ttwu()"
locks up on ARM
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 19:04 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > @@ -2636,7 +2636,8 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> > * to spin on ->on_cpu if p is current, since that would
> > * deadlock.
> > */
> > - if (p == current) {
> > + if (cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
> > + p->sched_contributes_to_load = 0;
> > ttwu_queue(p, cpu);
>
> Btw. I do not pretend I really understand se->vruntime, but in this
> case we are doing enqueue_task() without ->task_waking(), however we
> pass ENQUEUE_WAKING. Is it correct?
No its not, that's the thing that I got wrong the first time and caused
these pauses.
--
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