On 12/10/18 09:22, luca abeni wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:53:25 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> [...]
> > > > > + if (rq->curr != rq->idle) {
> > > > > + rq->proxy = rq->idle;
> > > > > + set_tsk_need_resched(rq->idle);
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > +
On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:53:25 +0200
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
> > > > + if (rq->curr != rq->idle) {
> > > > + rq->proxy = rq->idle;
> > > > + set_tsk_need_resched(rq->idle);
> > > > + /*
> > > > +* XXX [juril] don't we still need to
On 11/10/18 14:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
> I think it was the safe and simple choice; note that we're not migrating
> just a single @p, but a whole chain of @p. rq->curr must not be any of the
> possible @p's. rq->idle, is per definition not one of the @p's.
>
> Does that make sense?
It d
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 02:34:48PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Luca,
>
> On 10/10/18 13:10, luca abeni wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:24:31 +0200
> > Juri Lelli wrote:
> > [...]
> > > +migrate_task:
> > [...]
> > > + put_prev_task(rq, next);
> > > + if (rq->curr != rq->idle) {
>
Hi Luca,
On 10/10/18 13:10, luca abeni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:24:31 +0200
> Juri Lelli wrote:
> [...]
> > +migrate_task:
> [...]
> > + put_prev_task(rq, next);
> > + if (rq->curr != rq->idle) {
> > + rq->proxy = rq->idle;
> > + set_tsk_need_resched(rq->id
Hi,
On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 11:24:31 +0200
Juri Lelli wrote:
[...]
> +migrate_task:
[...]
> + put_prev_task(rq, next);
> + if (rq->curr != rq->idle) {
> + rq->proxy = rq->idle;
> + set_tsk_need_resched(rq->idle);
> + /*
> + * XXX [juril] don't
From: Peter Zijlstra
A task currently holding a mutex (executing a critical section) might
find benefit in using scheduling contexts of other tasks blocked on the
same mutex if they happen to have higher priority of the current owner
(e.g., to prevent priority inversions).
Proxy execution lets a
7 matches
Mail list logo
