[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230602082503.GA624418@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 10:25:03 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Consider task_struct::saved_state in
wait_task_inactive().
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 11:12:34AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 05:13:35PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > On 2023-05-26 10:05:43 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > New day, new chances... How's this? Code-gen doesn't look totally
> > > insane, but then, making sense of an optimizing compiler's output is
> > > always a wee challenge.
> >
> > Noticed it too late but looks good. Tested, works.
>
> Excellent; full patch below. Will go stick in tip/sched/core soonish.
Urgh, so robot kicked me for breaking !SMP. And that made me realize
that UP wait_task_inactive() is broken on PREEMPT_RT.
Let me figure out what best to do about that..
Powered by blists - more mailing lists