From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932209Ab1ACPGp (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 3 Jan 2011 10:06:45 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:63947 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S932110Ab1ACPGo (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 3 Jan 2011 10:06:44 -0500
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 15:59:02 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@gmail.com>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
        Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@am.sony.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 08/17] sched: Drop the rq argument to
	sched_class::select_task_rq()
Message-ID: <20110103145902.GA7632@redhat.com>
References: <20101224122338.172750730@chello.nl> <20101224123742.887559254@chello.nl> <20101229143136.GC2728@zhy> <1294053409.2016.59.camel@laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1294053409.2016.59.camel@laptop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 01/03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 22:31 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > > -	/*
> > > -	 * select_task_rq() can race against ->cpus_allowed
> > > -	 */
> > > -	if (cpumask_test_cpu(dest_cpu, &p->cpus_allowed) &&
> > > -	    likely(cpu_active(dest_cpu)) && migrate_task(p, rq)) {
> > > +	if (likely(cpu_active(dest_cpu)) && need_migrate_task(p)) {
> >
> > If we drop rq_lock, need_migrate_task() maybe return true but
> > p is already running on other cpu. Thus we do a wrong migration
> > call.
>
> Yeah, too bad.. ;-) exec load balancing is more an optimistic thing
> anyway, if it got rebalanced under out feet we don't care.

I don't understand this need_migrate_task() at all (with or without
the patch). This task is current/running, it should always return T.

I guess, migrate_task() was needed before to initialize migration_req.

Oleg.