Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC 0/12][PATCH] SCHED_DEADLINE: fork and terminate task logic | From | Dario Faggioli <> | Date | Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:28:54 +0100 |
| |
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 17:15 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 12:11 +0100, Raistlin wrote: > > > > > + } else if (rt_prio(p->prio)) > > > > + p->sched_class = &rt_sched_class; > > > > + else > > > > p->sched_class = &fair_sched_class; > > > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > > > > @@ -2744,6 +2756,10 @@ static void finish_task_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev) > > > > if (mm) > > > > mmdrop(mm); > > > > if (unlikely(prev_state == TASK_DEAD)) { > > > > + /* a deadline task is dying: stop the bandwidth timer */ > > > > + if (deadline_task(prev)) > > > > + hrtimer_cancel(&prev->dl.dl_timer); > > > > + > > > > /* > > > > * Remove function-return probe instances associated with this > > > > * task and put them back on the free list. > > > > > > Shouldn't this be done in the ->dequeue_task() callback? > > > > > Not sure of this snippet... Actually, it is one of the most disturbing > > piece of code of this whole scheduler. :-( > > > > The reason why it is here is that I think it is needed to call > > hrtimer_cancel() _without_ holding the rq->lock, is that correct? > > I think we can nest the hrtimer base lock inside the rq->lock these > days, so it should be safe to call while holding it, anyway, lockdep > will quickly tell you if you try ;-) > Nice, I'll try this soon, thanks.
> > It is > > Is that a stmt or an unfinished sentence? > No, this is nothing, sorry! :-P
Regards, Dario
-- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, ReTiS Lab, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa (Italy)
http://blog.linux.it/raistlin / raistlin@ekiga.net / dario.faggioli@jabber.org [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |