[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230602104958._mDE_6c6@linutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:49:58 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 2023-06-02 12:37:31 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> ---
> Subject: sched: Unconditionally use full-fat wait_task_inactive()
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Date: Fri Jun 2 10:42:53 CEST 2023
>
> While modifying wait_task_inactive() for PREEMPT_RT; the build robot
> noted that UP got broken. This led to audit and consideration of the
> UP implementation of wait_task_inactive().
>
> It looks like the UP implementation is also broken for PREEMPT;
If UP is broken for PREEMPT, shouldn't it get a fixes or stable tag?
Eitherway, I will try to stuff this in RT today and give feedback. I
actually never booted this on UP, will try to do so today…
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists