On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 09:37:01 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> 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.
I always forgot that with documentation, pronouns should be avoided.
"But if has_pushable_tasks is false when entering"
>
> > + * this hard interrupt handler function, then to have it set would
", then to have it set to true 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);
