lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
Subjectlock order in O(1) scheduler

Hi Ingo,

I was looking through the new O(1) scheduler (found in linux-2.5.2-pre11),
when I came upon the following code in try_to_wake_up():

lock_task_rq(rq, p, flags);
p->state = TASK_RUNNING;
if (!p->array) {
if (!rt_task(p) && synchronous && (smp_processor_id() < p->cpu)) {
spin_lock(&this_rq()->lock);
p->cpu = smp_processor_id();
activate_task(p, this_rq());
spin_unlock(&this_rq()->lock);
} else {

I was unable to figure out what the logic of the '(smp_processor_id() <
p->cpu)' test is.. (Why should the CPU number of the process being awoken
matter?) My best guess is that this is to enforce a locking invariant -
but if so, isn't this test backwards? If p->cpu > current->cpu then
p->cpu's runqueue is locked first followed by this_rq - locking greatest to
least, where the rest of the code does least to greatest..

Also, this code in set_cpus_allowed() looks bogus:

if (target_cpu < smp_processor_id()) {
spin_lock_irq(&target_rq->lock);
spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
} else {
spin_lock_irq(&target_rq->lock);
spin_lock(&this_rq->lock);
}

The lock order is the same regardless of the if statement..


-Kevin

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Kevin O'Connor "BTW, IMHO we need a FAQ for |
| kevin@koconnor.net 'IMHO', 'FAQ', 'BTW', etc. !" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.110 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site