[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150407134758.GR24151@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 15:47:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched/fair: fix sudden expiration of cfq quota in
put_prev_task()
On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 02:52:51PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> If the above set_next_entity() is indeed the simple one, does the below
> cure things?
>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 3 +--
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index fdae26eb7218..df72d61138a8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -5176,12 +5176,11 @@ pick_next_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
> simple:
> cfs_rq = &rq->cfs;
> #endif
> + put_prev_task(rq, prev);
>
> if (!cfs_rq->nr_running)
> goto idle;
>
> - put_prev_task(rq, prev);
> -
> do {
> se = pick_next_entity(cfs_rq, NULL);
> set_next_entity(cfs_rq, se);
Bah, that's broken because if we end up going idle pick_next_task_idle()
is going to do put_prev_task() again.
Lemme think a bit more on that.
--
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