[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <571788F6.3020100@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:49:42 +0800
From: Xunlei Pang <xpang@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for
deadline tasks
On 2016/04/20 at 21:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:37:03PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>> + /* Updated under pi_lock and rtmutex lock */
>> struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost;
>> + struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost_copy;
>> struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task)
>> {
>> + if (!task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy)
>> return NULL;
>>
>> + return rb_entry(task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy,
>> + struct rt_mutex_waiter, pi_tree_entry)->task;
>> }
> why ?! Why not keep a regular task_struct pointer and avoid this stuff?
I meant to make it semantically consistent, but I can change it since you think task_struct is better.
Regards,
Xunlei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists