lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Question] sched: Should nr_uninterruptible be decremented in ttwu_do_activate()?
From
Date
On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 12:09 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 23:22 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> >> Hello all,
> >>
> >> In ttwu_do_activate(), we're decrementing nr_uninterruptible if
> >> p->sched_contributes_to_load (for SMP=y). But, we're also decrementing
> >> nr_uninterruptible from activate_task at the same path. Why we're
> >> doing it twice for a single task activation path?
> >
> > activate_task() does:
> >
> > if (task_contributes_to_load(p))
> > rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
> >
> > Now task_contributes_to_load() reads like:
> >
> > #define task_contributes_to_load(task) \
> > ((task->state & TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) != 0 && \
> > (task->flags & PF_FREEZING) == 0)
> >
> > which will be false, since we've set TASK_WAKING.
>
> Enough confusing. TASK_WAKING will be set when called from
> try_to_wake_up(). ttwu_do_activate() gets called from other places:
> scheduler_ipi() and sched_ttwu_pending() (at the time of cpu goes
> down). TASK_WAKING will be not set at that time,

Yes it will be, the only way to get on that list is throught
ttwu_queue_remote() at which point tasks are TASK_WAKING.

> moreover it is
> possible that, task has p->sched_contributes_to_load is set and latter
> on gets wake up by sched_ttwu_pending/scheduler_ipi() call.

That's the entire point. But all ways to ttwu_queue_remote() explicitly
set ->sched_contributes_to_load.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-12 08:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site