[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [: Bug when changing cpus_allowed of RT tasks?]
Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 17:35, Gregory Haskins <> wrote:
>>> static int select_task_rq_rt(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int flags)
>>> {
>>> [...]
>>> if (unlikely(rt_task(rq->curr)) &&
>>> (p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1)) {
>>> int cpu = find_lowest_rq(p);
>>> return (cpu == -1) ? task_cpu(p) : cpu;
>>> }
> /*
> * Otherwise, just let it ride on the affined RQ and the
> * post-schedule router will push the preempted task away
> */
> return task_cpu(p);
>>> }
> I completed the rest of function to emphasize it will return task_cpu(p)
> afterwards.
>> So the intent of this logic is to say "if the task is of type RT, and it can move, see if it can move
>> elsewhere". Otherwise, we do not try to move it at all.
> I'd say "if _current_ is of type RT, and _p_ can move, see if _p_ can move
> elsewhere". And this check is repeated for p inside find_lowest_rq, so it would
> not be needed here. Just let it call find_lowest_rq and -1 will be returned.

Ah, yes, "current" is correct. My bad.

>> Until further evidence is presented, I have to respectfully NAK the patch, as I do not think its doing the right thing
>> nor do I think the current code is actually broken.
> I see now it's not doing the right thing. IMO only the double check of
> rt.nr_cpus_allowed is superfluous, but not wrong.

Right. I have a suspicion that the original code didn't have the
redundant check, but it was patched that way later. I can't recall, tbh.

> Thanks for clarifications


Kind Regards,

[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-10 02:17    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean