[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230602111837.GE620383@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 13:18:37 +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 Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 12:49:58PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> 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?
It has been broken *forever*, I don't think we need to 'rush' a fix.
Also, I don't think anybody actually uses a UP+PREEMPT kernel much, but
what do I know.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists