[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1406707485.3600.32.camel@tkhai>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 12:04:45 +0400
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>, <pjt@...gle.com>,
<rostedt@...dmis.org>, <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
<tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] sched: Teach scheduler to understand
ONRQ_MIGRATING state
В Вт, 29/07/2014 в 18:19 +0200, Oleg Nesterov пишет:
> On 07/29, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >
> > How about this? Everything is inside task_rq_lock() now. The patch
> > became much less.
>
> And with this change task_migrating() is not possible under
> task_rq_lock() or __task_rq_lock(). This means that 1/5 can be simplified
> too.
It seems to me it won't be useless anyway. In every place we underline
that a task is exactly queued or dequeued, so it's not necessary to remember
whether it is migrating or not. This is a cleanup, though it's big.
> __migrate_swap_task() is probably the notable exception...
>
> Off-topic, but it takes 2 ->pi_lock's. This means it can deadlock with
> try_to_wake_up_local() (if a 3rd process does ttwu() and waits for
> ->on_cpu == 0). But I guess __migrate_swap_task() should not play with
> PF_WQ_WORKER threads.
Hmm.. I'm surprised, PF_WQ_WORKER threads may be unbound. But it seems
we still can't pass them to try_to_wake_up_local.
Regards,
Kirill
--
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