On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 08:53:09PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > I do not understand the cpu_active() check in select_fallback_rq(). > x86 doesn't need it, and the recent commit dd9d3843755d "sched: Fix > cpu_active_mask/cpu_online_mask race" documents the fact that on any > architecture we can ignore !active starting from CPU_ONLINE stage. > > But any possible reason why do we need this check in "fallback" must > equally apply to select_task_rq().
So the reason, from vague memory, is that we want to allow per-cpu threads to start/stop before/after active. active 'should' really only govern load-balancer bits or so. -- 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/
