Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Matt Fleming <> | Subject | [PATCH v2 5/7] sched/core: Reset RQCF_ACT_SKIP before unpinning rq->lock | Date | Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:38:11 +0100 |
| |
rq_clock() is called from sched_info_{depart,arrive}() after resetting RQCF_ACT_SKIP but prior to a call to update_rq_clock().
In preparation for pending patches that check whether the rq clock has been updated inside of a pin context before rq_clock() is called, move the reset of rq->clock_skip_update immediately before unpinning the rq lock.
This will avoid the new warnings which check if update_rq_clock() is being actively skipped.
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> --- kernel/sched/core.c | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index 7950c372fca0..1254629c9f2f 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -2871,6 +2871,9 @@ context_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev, prev->active_mm = NULL; rq->prev_mm = oldmm; } + + rq->clock_skip_update = 0; + /* * Since the runqueue lock will be released by the next * task (which is an invalid locking op but in the case @@ -3387,7 +3390,6 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt) next = pick_next_task(rq, prev, &rf); clear_tsk_need_resched(prev); clear_preempt_need_resched(); - rq->clock_skip_update = 0; if (likely(prev != next)) { rq->nr_switches++; @@ -3397,6 +3399,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt) trace_sched_switch(preempt, prev, next); rq = context_switch(rq, prev, next, &rf); /* unlocks the rq */ } else { + rq->clock_skip_update = 0; rq_unpin_lock(rq, &rf); raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock); } -- 2.9.3
| |