On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 04:48:56PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> + /*
> + * Normally, has_pushable_tasks() would be performed within the
> + * runqueue lock being held. But if it was not set when entering
"not set" what? I'm having trouble parsing this.
> + * this hard interrupt handler function, then to have it set would
> + * require a wake up. A wake up of an RT task will either cause a
> + * schedule if the woken task is higher priority than the running
> + * task, or it would try to do a push from the CPU doing the wake
> + * up. Grabbing the runqueue lock in such a case would more likely
> + * just cause unnecessary contention.
> + */
> if (has_pushable_tasks(rq)) {
> raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> push_rt_task(rq);
