From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
samu.p.onkalo@nokia.com, mingo@elte.hu,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
tglx <tglx@linutronix.de>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in scheduler when using rt_mutex
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 07:12:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1295503938.8027.59.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikEwgMzco2fHT668Mg3fC-T3EBMUgQQqW-Ojj-Y@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 2011-01-20 at 13:30 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:
> > or the task is enqueued
> > at it's last offset as usual for runnable tasks.
>
> But shouldn't we task the tasks as WAKEUP, through the task has been
> waked on other sched_class?
We don't need to play any games with it afaiks, just normalize it, and
the rest is taken care of automatically.
> IOW, I wonder if we should play with place_entity() at some point.
If the task returns as a sleeper, place entity() will be called when it
is awakened, so it's sleep credit will be clipped as usual. So vruntime
can be much less than min_vruntime at class exit time, and it doesn't
matter, clipping on wakeup after re-entry takes care of it.. if that's
what you were thinking about.
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-20 6:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-17 14:42 Bug in scheduler when using rt_mutex Onkalo Samu
2011-01-17 15:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-17 15:15 ` samu.p.onkalo
2011-01-17 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-17 16:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-18 8:23 ` Onkalo Samu
2011-01-18 8:59 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-18 13:35 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-18 14:25 ` Onkalo Samu
2011-01-19 2:38 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-19 3:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-19 4:35 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-19 5:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-19 6:09 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-19 6:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-19 7:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-01-19 7:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-19 9:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-19 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-19 11:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-19 12:58 ` Onkalo Samu
2011-01-19 13:13 ` Onkalo Samu
2011-01-19 13:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-20 4:18 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 4:27 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 5:32 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 4:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-20 5:30 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 6:12 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2011-01-20 7:06 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 8:37 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-20 9:07 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 10:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2011-01-21 11:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-21 12:24 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-21 13:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-21 15:03 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-21 15:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-01-21 13:15 ` Yong Zhang
2011-01-20 7:07 ` Onkalo Samu
2011-01-21 6:25 ` Onkalo Samu
2011-01-20 3:10 ` Yong Zhang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1295503938.8027.59.camel@marge.simson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=samu.p.onkalo@nokia.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yong.zhang0@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox