On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2014 21:43:50 +0100 (CET)
> Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > > Reading what the commit is suppose to do, I realize that the p->prio
> > > can't be set if the task is boosted with a higher prio, but the
> > > p->normal_prio still needs to be set regardless, otherwise, when the
> > > task is deboosted, it wont get the new priority.
> >
> > Indeed.
>
> Is this an Acked-by?
>
> Peter, can you pull this patch please, it is still broken in tip/master.
Lemme look at it tomorrow again with an awake brain. This seems to be
some forward porting hickup which needs a closer look. Just look at
the 3.10-rt version of this:
@@ -3825,20 +3826,25 @@ static struct task_struct *find_process_by_pid(pid_t
pid)
return pid ? find_task_by_vpid(pid) : current;
}
-/* Actually do priority change: must hold rq lock. */
-static void
-__setscheduler(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int policy, int prio)
+static void __setscheduler_params(struct task_struct *p, int policy, int prio)
{
p->policy = policy;
p->rt_priority = prio;
p->normal_prio = normal_prio(p);
+ set_load_weight(p);
+}
That code has changed significantly probably due to the EDF merge. We
need to figure out whether there is more damage due to that.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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/
