Re: [lucas.de.marchi@gmail.com: Bug when changing cpus_allowed of RT tasks?]

[Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1751 bytes --]

Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 17:35, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com> wrote:
> 
>>>       static int select_task_rq_rt(struct task_struct *p, int sd_flag, int flags)
>>>       {
>>>               [...]
>>>               if (unlikely(rt_task(rq->curr)) &&
>>>                   (p->rt.nr_cpus_allowed > 1)) {
>>>                       int cpu = find_lowest_rq(p);
>>>
>>>                       return (cpu == -1) ? task_cpu(p) : cpu;
>>>               }
> 	/*
> 	 * Otherwise, just let it ride on the affined RQ and the
> 	 * post-schedule router will push the preempted task away
> 	 */
> 	return task_cpu(p);
> 
>>>       }
> I completed the rest of function to emphasize it will return task_cpu(p)
> afterwards.
> 
>> So the intent of this logic is to say "if the task is of type RT, and it can move, see if it can move
>> elsewhere".  Otherwise, we do not try to move it at all.
> 
> I'd say "if _current_ is of type RT, and _p_ can move, see if _p_ can move
> elsewhere". And this check is repeated for p inside find_lowest_rq, so it would
> not be needed here. Just let it call find_lowest_rq and -1 will be returned.

Ah, yes, "current" is correct.  My bad.


> 
>> Until further evidence is presented, I have to respectfully NAK the patch, as I do not think its doing the right thing
>> nor do I think the current code is actually broken.
> 
> I see now it's not doing the right thing. IMO only the double check of
> rt.nr_cpus_allowed is superfluous, but not wrong.
> 

Right.  I have a suspicion that the original code didn't have the
redundant check, but it was patched that way later.  I can't recall, tbh.

> 
> Thanks for clarifications

Np.

Kind Regards,
-Greg


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 267 bytes --]