On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 04:18:14PM +, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index c055bad249a9..45d86b862750 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4132,7 +4132,7 @@ pick_next_entity(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct
>
> I didn't get around to reading the original discussion here, but how can
> that possibly be?
>
> I can see !se, in that case curr is still selected.
>
> I can also see !curr, in that case curr is put.
>
> But I cannot see !se && !curr, per the above check we know
> cfs_rq->nr_running != 0, so
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 04:18:14PM +, Vineeth Remanan Pillai wrote:
> +static struct task_struct *
> +pick_task_fair(struct rq *rq)
> +{
> + struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = >cfs;
> + struct sched_entity *se;
> +
> + if (!cfs_rq->nr_running)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + do {
> +
From: "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)"
Because sched_class::pick_next_task() also implies
sched_class::set_next_task() (and possibly put_prev_task() and
newidle_balance) it is not state invariant. This makes it unsuitable
for remote task selection.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
Signed-off-by:
4 matches
Mail list logo
