[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160921133813.31976-6-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:38:11 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Subject: [PATCH v2 5/7] sched/core: Reset RQCF_ACT_SKIP before unpinning rq->lock
rq_clock() is called from sched_info_{depart,arrive}() after resetting
RQCF_ACT_SKIP but prior to a call to update_rq_clock().
In preparation for pending patches that check whether the rq clock has
been updated inside of a pin context before rq_clock() is called, move
the reset of rq->clock_skip_update immediately before unpinning the rq
lock.
This will avoid the new warnings which check if update_rq_clock() is
being actively skipped.
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 7950c372fca0..1254629c9f2f 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2871,6 +2871,9 @@ context_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev,
prev->active_mm = NULL;
rq->prev_mm = oldmm;
}
+
+ rq->clock_skip_update = 0;
+
/*
* Since the runqueue lock will be released by the next
* task (which is an invalid locking op but in the case
@@ -3387,7 +3390,6 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
next = pick_next_task(rq, prev, &rf);
clear_tsk_need_resched(prev);
clear_preempt_need_resched();
- rq->clock_skip_update = 0;
if (likely(prev != next)) {
rq->nr_switches++;
@@ -3397,6 +3399,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
trace_sched_switch(preempt, prev, next);
rq = context_switch(rq, prev, next, &rf); /* unlocks the rq */
} else {
+ rq->clock_skip_update = 0;
rq_unpin_lock(rq, &rf);
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
}
--
2.9.3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists