[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191108115810.GA83597@google.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:58:10 +0000
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aaron.lwe@...il.com,
mingo@...nel.org, pauld@...hat.com, jdesfossez@...italocean.com,
naravamudan@...italocean.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
kernel-team@...roid.com, john.stultz@...aro.org
Subject: Re: NULL pointer dereference in pick_next_task_fair
On Friday 08 Nov 2019 at 11:47:44 (+0000), Valentin Schneider wrote:
> I think we can ignore RETRY_TASK because this happens before the picking loop,
> so we'll observe any new DL/RT task that got enqueued while newidle released
> the lock. This also means we can safely break the balance loop in
> pick_next_task() when we get RETRY_TASK, because we've got something to pick
> (some new RT/DL task).
Ah right, the second loop always iterates from DL, so that works.
> This wants a comment though, methinks.
+1 :)
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists