From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC -v3 PATCH 2/3] sched: add yield_to function
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:04:25 +0100
Message-ID: <1294247065.2016.267.camel@laptop>
References: <20110103162637.29f23c40@annuminas.surriel.com>
	 <20110103162918.577a9620@annuminas.surriel.com>
	 <1294164289.2016.186.camel@laptop>
	 <1294246647.8369.52.camel@marge.simson.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kiviti <avi@redhat.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <1294246647.8369.52.camel@marge.simson.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 17:57 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> +               p_cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(pse);
> +               local = 1;
> +       }
> +#endif
> +
> +       /* Tell the scheduler that we'd really like pse to run next. */
> +       p_cfs_rq->next = pse;
> +
> +       /* We know whether we want to preempt or not, but are we allowed? */
> +       preempt &= same_thread_group(p, task_of(p_cfs_rq->curr));
> +
> +       if (local)
> +               clear_buddies(cfs_rq, se); 

You might want to clear before setting next :-)