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 10:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> > trace_special_pid(sch.task->pid, sch.task->prio, p->prio);
> > - if (sch.task && (sch.task->prio >= p->prio))
> > + if (sch.task && ((sch.task->prio <= p->prio) || !rt_task(p)))
> > sch.task = NULL;
>
> this second condition i'd not change: it just expresses the rare case
> where a higher-prio task hits the CPU that we somehow did not start to
> trace. In that case we just zap the current trace.
>

OK, I think I understand that part now too. There wasn't any comments
about what it was doing so I wasn't sure if that was the right move.
But looking at it further, I believe you are right.

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 13:50    [W:0.412 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site