On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 07:46:09PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:38:41PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 03:17:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > > I did something like this on top.. please have a look at the XXX and > > > integrate. > > > > i am not sure, what do you intend for me to do. > > > > do you mean that i am supposed to integrate this cleanup patch you gave me > > including the XXX comment?
No, the intent was for you to think about the point marked XXX, which you've done below. > > > + * > > > + * XXX this appears wrong!! check history, > > > + * we appear to always set queued and RUNNING under the same lock > > > instance > > > + * might be from before TASK_WAKING ? > > > */ > > > > is it impossible to happen to check if vruntime is normalized, when doing > > something like e.g. active load balance where queued != TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED > > and p->state == TASK_RUNNING? > > furthermore, in any migration by load balance, it seems to be possible.. > > > > > i think it can happen.. OK, then we need to change the comment to reflect the actual reason the test is needed. Because I think the currently described scenario is incorrect. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/