lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RT] possible bug in trace_start_sched_wakeup
From
Date
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 10:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> > spin_lock(&sch.trace_lock);
> > - if (sch.task && (sch.task->prio >= p->prio))
> > + if (sch.task && ((sch.task->prio <= p->prio) || !rt_task(p)))
> > goto out_unlock;
>
> good catch - but i'd not do the !rt_task(p) condition, because e.g. PI
> related priority boosting works _without_ changing p->policy. So it is
> p->prio that controls. I.e. a simple "sch.task->prio <= p->prio" should
> be enough.

Ah, I don't know what I was thinking about the rt_task part (I was
working on very little sleep). You're right. Nuke it!

Thanks,

-- Steve


-
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: 2006-01-27 13:49    [W:0.064 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site