Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 2 Jun 2021 15:30:16 +0100 | From | Mark Rutland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/6] sched,perf,kvm: Fix preemption condition |
| |
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 04:10:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:59:07AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > ----- On Jun 2, 2021, at 9:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org wrote: > > > > > When ran from the sched-out path (preempt_notifier or perf_event), > > > p->state is irrelevant to determine preemption. You can get preempted > > > with !task_is_running() just fine. > > > > > > The right indicator for preemption is if the task is still on the > > > runqueue in the sched-out path. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> > > > --- > > > kernel/events/core.c | 7 +++---- > > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +- > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > --- a/kernel/events/core.c > > > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c > > > @@ -8568,13 +8568,12 @@ static void perf_event_switch(struct tas > > > }, > > > }; > > > > > > - if (!sched_in && task->state == TASK_RUNNING) > > > + if (!sched_in && current->on_rq) { > > > > This changes from checking task->state to current->on_rq, but this change > > from "task" to "current" is not described in the commit message, which is odd. > > > > Are we really sure that task == current here ? > > Yeah, @task == @prev == current at this point, but yes, not sure why I > changed that... lemme change that back to task.
FWIW, with that:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
I have no strong feelings either way w.r.t. the whitespace cleanup. ;)
Thanks, Mark
| |