On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 22:18:56 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> 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
Yep, I talked with Sebastian on IRC and that seems to be the case.
> 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.
Yeah, when I looked at the -rt version, it appeared to have my fix
already. But in reality, the forward port broke it. Here's the problem
part of the commit:
+ set_load_weight(p);
+}
- p->normal_prio = normal_prio(p);
- p->prio = rt_mutex_getprio(p);
Your patch never deleted the above two. And it kept them in the
locations that I placed them in, in my patch.
-- Steve
+/* Actually do priority change: must hold pi & rq lock. */
+static void __setscheduler(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p,
+ const struct sched_attr *attr)
+{
--
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/
