On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:40:14PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:21:13 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:09:25PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:39:52 +0200 > > > Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:02:53PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: > > > > > /* > > > > > + * 'current' release this lock, so 'current' should be a higher > > > > > prio > > > > > + * task than the next top waiter, unless the current prio was > > > > > gotten > > > > > + * from this top waiter, iff so, we need to deboost 'current' > > > > > after > > > > > + * the lock release. > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (current->prio == waiter->prio) > > > > > + deboost = true; > > > > > > > > This is wrong. > > > > > > The comment is, especially that "iff". What if current and waiter > > > happen to have the same priority? Then it too doesn't need to be > > > deboosted. > > > > The wrongness is in comparing prio and thinking it means anything. > > Because of deadline scheduling?
Yep.
