[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180528161017.ttgdusrzypvkga5w@pburton-laptop>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 09:10:17 -0700
From: Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched: Make select_task_rq() require cpu_active()
for user tasks
Hi Peter,
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 05:53:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 08:45:16AM -0700, Paul Burton wrote:
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -1562,7 +1562,7 @@ int select_task_rq(struct task_struct *p
> > > * not worry about this generic constraint ]
> > > */
> > > if (unlikely(!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &p->cpus_allowed) ||
> > > - !cpu_online(cpu)))
> > > + (is_per_cpu_kthread(p) ? !cpu_online(cpu) : !cpu_active(cpu)))
> > > cpu = select_fallback_rq(task_cpu(p), p);
> > >
> > > return cpu;
> >
> > Yes this looks good to me.
> >
> > Are you planning to submit your change to introduce
> > is_per_cpu_kthread(), or shall I?
>
> I've got the lot; I just need to write a better changelog for my old
> (now rebased) patch and make a small note in your patch, but will feed
> them to Ingo when done.
Thanks a bunch!
Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists