[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1308829759.1022.109.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:49:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bharata B Rao <bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 12/16] sched: prevent interactions with throttled
entities
On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 00:17 -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> @@ -2635,8 +2704,10 @@ static int update_shares_cpu(struct task
>
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&rq->lock, flags);
>
> - update_rq_clock(rq);
> - update_cfs_load(cfs_rq, 1);
> + if (!throttled_hierarchy(cfs_rq)) {
> + update_rq_clock(rq);
> + update_cfs_load(cfs_rq, 1);
> + }
>
> /*
OK, so we can't contribute to load since we're throttled, but
tg->load_weight might have changed meanwhile?
Also, update_cfs_shares()->reweight_entity() can dequeue/enqueue the
entity, doesn't that require an up-to-date rq->clock?
--
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