[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191108123515.GL4131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:35:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
aaron.lwe@...il.com, valentin.schneider@....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 Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 12:15:26PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Right, with a single loop you'll have to re-iterate the classes from
> the start in case of RETRY_TASK, but you're re-iterating all the classes
> too with this patch. You're doing a little less work in the second loop
> though, so maybe it's worth it.
The thing with the restart is that it'll make your head explode when we
go do core-scheduling.
> And I was the one worried about
> refactoring the code too much close to the release, so maybe that's for
> another time ;)
It is either this patch or reverting a bunch of patches :/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists