[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190426161056.4624-1-vpillai@digitalocean.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 16:10:56 +0000
From: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vpillai@...italocean.com>,
Nishanth Aravamudan <naravamudan@...italocean.com>,
Julien Desfossez <jdesfossez@...italocean.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.intel@...il.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, pjt@...gle.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org, kerrnel@...gle.com,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@...il.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 09/17] sched: Introduce sched_class::pick_task()
>
> I didn't get around to reading the original discussion here, but how can
> that possibly be?
>
> I can see !se, in that case curr is still selected.
>
> I can also see !curr, in that case curr is put.
>
> But I cannot see !se && !curr, per the above check we know
> cfs_rq->nr_running != 0, so there must be a cfs task to find. This means
> either curr or se must exist.
This fix was suggested as a quick fix for a crash seen in v1. But
I agree with you that this should be a bug if it happens and should
be investigated. I have tried in v2 and can no longer reproduce the
crash. Will remove the check in v3.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists