On Tue, 5 Apr 2016 20:02:52 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 07:56:57PM +0200, luca abeni wrote:
>
> > > > + migrate_active = hrtimer_active(&p->dl.inactive_timer);
> > > > + if (migrate_active)
> > > > + sub_running_bw(&p->dl, &rq->dl);
> > > > + raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > >
> > > At this point task_rq() is still the above rq, so if the inactive timer
> > > hits here it will lock this rq and subtract the running bw here _again_,
> > > right?
> > I think it will see the task state as TASK_RUNNING, so it will do nothing.
> > Or it will cancelled later when the task is enqueued... I'll double check
> > this.
>
> Right, so this is select_task_rq_dl(), we run this in wakeups, before
> TASK_RUNNING.
Sigh... I knew I was missing something here... :(
So, I think the solution here is to use double_lock_balance() (or something
like that) to take both the rq locks so that the inactive timer handler cannot
run between sub_running_bw() and add_running_bw()... I'll try this.
Thanks,
Luca
