[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150420134803.5446e32d@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 13:48:03 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Xunlei Pang <xlpang@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
Xunlei Pang <pang.xunlei@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] sched/rt: Fix wrong SMP scheduler behavior for
equal prio cases
On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:20:48 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > + */
> > > + if (preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE)
> > > + enqueue_pushable_task_preempted(rq, p);
> > > + else
> > > + enqueue_pushable_task(rq, p);
> > > + }
> > > }
>
> This looks wrong, what do you want to find? _any_ preemption? In that
> case PREEMPT_ACTIVE is wrong. What you need to check is if the task is
> still on the RQ or not.
>
> If the task was put to sleep it got dequeued, if it was not dequeued, it
> got preempted.
>
> PREEMPT_ACTIVE is only ever set for forced kernel preemption, which is a
> special sub case only ever triggered with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.
Ah, you're right. I was thinking of just forced preemption, but, I
wasn't thinking about voluntary preemption (preemption points). We want
this behavior for that too (for kernel).
And yes, if we preempt in user space, this isn't enough either.
Actually, I think we only care if the state of the task is
TASK_RUNNING, if it is anything else, the task is probably going to
sleep anyway and we don't care about FIFO order then.
-- Steve
--
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