[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1326399945.2442.212.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:25:45 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Question] sched: Should nr_uninterruptible be decremented in
ttwu_do_activate()?
On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 23:08 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> That might be the case for scheduler_ipi(), but when
> sched_ttwu_pending() gets called when a cpu goes down, all tasks from
> wake_list of that cpu has been moved without TASK_WAKING is set. For a
> particular task it might be possible that when it ran previously it
> had p->sched_contributes_to_load is set. Latter, this task's cpu has
> been put down and calls sched_ttwu_pending(), then for that task
> p->sched_contributes_to_load is set and TASK_WAKING is not set.
> Couldn't be happen?
No, look again, its impossible to be on that list and not be
TASK_WAKING.
The only way onto the list is through ttwu_queue_remote(), the only way
off the list is through sched_ttwu_pending().
--
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