[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150929104044.60172e41@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:40:44 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
oleg@...hat.com, umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/11] sched: Create preempt_count invariant
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:02:01 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 02:55:13PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 11:28:27AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > #define init_task_preempt_count(p) do { \
> > > - task_thread_info(p)->preempt_count = PREEMPT_DISABLED; \
> > > + task_thread_info(p)->preempt_count = 2*PREEMPT_DISABLED; \
> >
> > Since it's not quite obvious why we use this magic value without looking
> > at schedule_tail() details, maybe add a little comment? (Just "/* see schedule_tail() */").
>
> Right, I fixed that in 12/11 v2. I'll change that around a bit.
I'll wait for v2 because this confused me too.
-- 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