[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1447806899-20303-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 09:34:59 +0900
From: <byungchul.park@....com>
To: <mingo@...nel.org>, <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de, tglx@...utronix.de,
yuyang.du@...el.com, pjt@...gle.com,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Subject: [PATCH] sched: modify the comment about lock assumption in migrate_task_rq_fair()
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
The comment describing migrate_task_rq_fair() says that the caller
should hold p->pi_lock. But in some other case, the caller can hold
task_rq(p)->lock instead of p->pi_lock. So the comment is broken and
this patch fixs it.
Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
---
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 077076f..6f43dfd 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -5006,8 +5006,7 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int prev_cpu, int sd_flag, int wake_f
/*
* Called immediately before a task is migrated to a new cpu; task_cpu(p) and
* cfs_rq_of(p) references at time of call are still valid and identify the
- * previous cpu. However, the caller only guarantees p->pi_lock is held; no
- * other assumptions, including the state of rq->lock, should be made.
+ * previous cpu. The caller guarantees p->pi_lock or task_rq(p)->lock is held.
*/
static void migrate_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int next_cpu)
{
--
1.7.9.5
--
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