[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160405184729.5a4b209a@utopia>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 18:47:29 +0200
From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 1/7] Track the active utilisation
Hi Peter,
first of all, thanks for all the reviews!
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 14:23:27 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -1218,6 +1242,9 @@ static void task_dead_dl(struct task_struct *p)
> > /* XXX we should retain the bw until 0-lag */
> > dl_b->total_bw -= p->dl.dl_bw;
> > raw_spin_unlock_irq(&dl_b->lock);
> > +
> > + if (task_on_rq_queued(p))
> > + sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> > }
> >
>
> A dead task cannot be running, not be queued, right? ISTR you remove
> this hunk in a later patch as well.
I suspect this is some "better safe than sorry" code I added trying
to solve some issue that then I solved in a different way... But I
forgot to remove it.
I'll fix the patch and re-test.
Thanks,
Luca
Powered by blists - more mailing lists