lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [BUG] "sched: Remove rq->lock from the first half of ttwu()" locks up on ARM
From
Date
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 20:53 +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> Peter,
>
> On 5/26/2011 10:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 19:17 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 19:04 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>> On 05/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> @@ -2636,7 +2636,8 @@ try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state, int wake_flags)
> >>>> * to spin on ->on_cpu if p is current, since that would
> >>>> * deadlock.
> >>>> */
> >>>> - if (p == current) {
> >>>> + if (cpu == smp_processor_id()) {
> >>>> + p->sched_contributes_to_load = 0;
> >>>> ttwu_queue(p, cpu);
> >>>
> >>> Btw. I do not pretend I really understand se->vruntime, but in this
> >>> case we are doing enqueue_task() without ->task_waking(), however we
> >>> pass ENQUEUE_WAKING. Is it correct?
> >>
> >> No its not, that's the thing that I got wrong the first time and caused
> >> these pauses.
> >
> > We'd end up with something like the below, which isn't too different
> > from what I've now got queued.
> >
> > It has the extra cpu == smp_processor_id() check, but I'm not sure this
> > whole case is worth the trouble. I could go stick some counters in to
> > verify how often all this happens I guess.
> >
> Are you planning send version of this patch for stable .39
> too ?

.39 is fine, as the ttwu() changes only appeared in mainline during the
current merge window.

Cheers,

M.
--
Reality is an implementation detail.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-27 17:31    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans