On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:11:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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.
what is the currently described scenario to need to change? then.. did i change patches as what you suggested, in v4? > -- > 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/ -- 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/
