[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1424172838.5749.27.camel@tkhai>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:33:58 +0300
From: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...allels.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Josh Poimboeuf" <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: Move __task_rq_{, un}lock() to
kernel/sched/sched.h
В Вт, 17/02/2015 в 12:26 +0100, Peter Zijlstra пишет:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:11:16PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 01:46:51PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > >
> > > Place it in sched.h, because dl_task_timer() needs it.
> > > Also remove lockdep check, which is not fit to this
> > > function.
> >
> > No, that lockdep check is valid for all current sites.
>
> Also, note that you just proved the reason we didn't have pi_lock there
> wrong the other day.
>
> As per 0f397f2c90ce ("sched/dl: Fix race in dl_task_timer()"):
>
> "The only reason we don't strictly need ->pi_lock now is because
> we're guaranteed to have p->state == TASK_RUNNING here and are
> thus free of ttwu races".
>
> And therefore we should use the full task_rq_lock() here.
>
So, we move task_rq_lock() to sched.h, and dl_task_timer() uses it?
--
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