[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150603073227.GW3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 09:32:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Kirill Tkhai <tkhai@...dex.ru>
Cc: "umgwanakikbuti@...il.com" <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
"ktkhai@...allels.com" <ktkhai@...allels.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"juri.lelli@...il.com" <juri.lelli@...il.com>,
"pang.xunlei@...aro.org" <pang.xunlei@...aro.org>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"luca.abeni@...tn.it" <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/7] sched: Allow balance callbacks for
check_class_changed()
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 07:27:19PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > + * task_dead_dl() will cancel our timer if we happen to die while
> > + * its still pending.
>
> task_dead_dl() is called for tasks of deadline class only. So if we do that,
> the timer may be executed after final task's dead.
Indeed; sleep deprived brain misses the obvious :/
I can't seem to come up with anything much better than pulling that
hrtimer_cancel() into finish_task_switch(), however sad that is.
Something like:
for_each_class(class) {
if (class->task_dead)
class->task_dead(prev);
}
Would be nicest, but will slow down the common case. And a callback list
has the downside of having to preallocate entries for every task,
causing mostly pointless memory overhead.
--
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