[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180413124458.GG4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:44:58 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched/core: uclamp: add CPU clamp groups accounting
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:47:45PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> In the past I remember some funny dance in cgroup callbacks when a
> task was terminating (like being moved in the root-rq just before
> exiting). But, as you say, if we always have the task_rq_lock we
> should be safe.
The syscall does the whole:
task_rq_lock();
queued = task_on_rq_queued();
running = task_current();
if (queued)
dequeue_task();
if (running)
put_prev_task();
/*
* task is in invariant state here,
* muck with it.
*/
if (queued)
enqueue_task();
if (running)
set_curr_task()
task_rq_unlock();
pattern; which because C sucks, we've not found a good template for yet.
Without the dequeue/put,enqueue/set you have to jump a few extra hoops.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists