On Thu, 11 Apr 2013, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
> The reason why we can't get rid of the bind in the unpark code is because,
> the threads are parked during CPU offline *after* calling CPU_DOWN_PREPARE.
> And during CPU_DOWN_PREPARE, the scheduler removes the CPU from the
> cpu_active_mask.
> So on any subsequent wakeup of these threads before they are parked, the
> scheduler
> will force migrate them to some other CPU (but alas it wont print this event
> because of the p->mm != NULL check in select_fallback_rq()). So during unpark
> during the next online operation we need to bind it again. But that's fine,
> IMHO.
No, it's not fine. If we do not have TASK_PARKED a wakeup which
happens after onlining the task and races with the unpark code will
cause the task to end up on the wrong CPU. Borislav showed traces
which prove that with ksoftirqd. So no, TASK_PARKED is going to stay.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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/
