[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160213120953.GA6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 13:09:53 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@....com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] sched/fair: Abort wakeup when task is no longer
in a sleeping state
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:22:29PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> >>+ smp_cond_acquire(!p->on_cpu || !(p->state& state));
> >>+ if (!(p->state& state)) {
> >>+ success = 0;
> >>+ goto out;
> >>+ }
> >This doesn't make sense, if we managed to get here, p->on_rq must be
> >false, which means the other side is already in the middle of
> >schedule().
> Yes, you are right. It is my bad that I miss the on_rq check earlier. Just
> scrap the last patch.
No worries, that is tricky code :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists