On Sat, Oct 24, 2015 at 10:23:14PM -0700, Joonwoo Park wrote:
> @@ -1069,7 +1069,7 @@ static struct rq *move_queued_task(struct rq *rq,
> struct task_struct *p, int new
> {
> lockdep_assert_held(&rq->lock);
>
> - dequeue_task(rq, p, 0);
> + dequeue_task(rq, p, DEQUEUE_MIGRATING);
> p->on_rq = TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING;
> set_task_cpu(p, new_cpu);
> raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> @@ -5656,7 +5671,7 @@ static void detach_task(struct task_struct *p, struct
> lb_env *env)
> {
> lockdep_assert_held(&env->src_rq->lock);
>
> - deactivate_task(env->src_rq, p, 0);
> + deactivate_task(env->src_rq, p, DEQUEUE_MIGRATING);
> p->on_rq = TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING;
> set_task_cpu(p, env->dst_cpu);
> }
Also note that on both sites we also set TASK_ON_RQ_MIGRATING -- albeit
late. Can't you simply set that earlier (and back to QUEUED later) and
test for task_on_rq_migrating() instead of blowing up the fastpath like
you did?
--
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/
