[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALZhoSSEfXyojD70cannzG9NxvqXTw6r_L5bxT9Ew+JbFhuxKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 23:59:36 +0800
From: Lei Wen <adrian.wenl@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Question regarding put_prev_task in preempted condition
Hi Peter,
While I am checking the preempt related code, I find a interesting part.
That is when preempt_schedule is called, for its preempt_count be added
PREEMPT_ACTIVE, so in __schedule() it could not be dequeued from rq
by deactivate_task.
Thus in put_prev_task, which is called a little later in __schedule(), it
would call put_prev_task_fair, which finally calls put_prev_entity.
For current task is not dequeued from rq, so in this function, it would
enqueue it again to the rq by __enqueue_entity.
Is there any reason to do like this, since entity already is over rq,
why need to queue it again?
And if current rq's vruntime distribution like below, and vruntime with 8
is the task that would be get preempted. So in __enqueue_entity,
its rb_left/rb_right would be set as NULL and reinserted into this RB tree.
Then seems to me now, the entity with vruntime of 3 would be disappeared
from the RB tree.
13
/ \
8 19
/ \
3 11
I am not sure whether I understand the whole process correctly...
Would the example as above happen in our real life?
Thanks,
Lei
--
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