On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 01:17:02PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 11/09/20 09:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The intent of balance_callback() has always been to delay executing
> > balancing operations until the end of the current rq->lock section.
> > This is because balance operations must
On 11/09/20 13:25, pet...@infradead.org wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 01:17:02PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> So that can be say __schedule() tail racing with some setprio; what's the
>> worst that can (currently) happen here? Something like say two consecutive
>> enqueuing of push_rt_t
On 11/09/20 09:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> The intent of balance_callback() has always been to delay executing
> balancing operations until the end of the current rq->lock section.
> This is because balance operations must often drop rq->lock, and that
> isn't safe in general.
>
> However, as not
The intent of balance_callback() has always been to delay executing
balancing operations until the end of the current rq->lock section.
This is because balance operations must often drop rq->lock, and that
isn't safe in general.
However, as noted by Scott, there were a few holes in that scheme;
ba
4 matches
Mail list logo
