From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754833Ab1AUMYa (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:24:30 -0500 Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:58048 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752012Ab1AUMY1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:24:27 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=ilkVTAZkO/sYHGzHxiznk4fXbVWRG56DQje9mDvGzwmCTbQUjuE6CkAk+oKxX9D/gs RZ6E8OTbGzIjYpqJ7TCC7O1yTiRvXouPVc5iQrKQDLKYmKUR+XBDvy7UI+j7YWv5ZTc3 kYzdhWcQ7J9oPjK8riIKKNharRsT+e/5X+1fY= Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:24:12 +0800 From: Yong Zhang To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Mike Galbraith , samu.p.onkalo@nokia.com, mingo@elte.hu, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , tglx , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: Bug in scheduler when using rt_mutex Message-ID: <20110121122412.GA5071@zhy> Reply-To: Yong Zhang References: <1295443822.28776.23.camel@laptop> <1295499568.8027.30.camel@marge.simson.net> <1295503938.8027.59.camel@marge.simson.net> <1295512625.8027.88.camel@marge.simson.net> <1295518047.8027.104.camel@marge.simson.net> <1295608136.28776.266.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1295608136.28776.266.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:08:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > That's ok, we don't and aren't supposed to care what happens while he's > > gone. But we do have to make sure that vruntime is sane either when he > > leaves, or when he comes back. Seems to me the easiest is clip when he > > leaves to cover him having slept a long time before leaving, then coming > > back on us as a runner. If he comes back as a sleeper, he'll be clipped > > again anyway, so all is well. > > > > sched_fork() should probably zero child's vruntime too, so non-fair > > children can't enter fair_class with some bogus lag they never had. > > Something like so? > > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched.c > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched.c > @@ -2624,6 +2624,8 @@ void sched_fork(struct task_struct *p, i > > if (!rt_prio(p->prio)) > p->sched_class = &fair_sched_class; > + else > + p->se.vruntime = 0; This can be moved to __sched_fork() > > if (p->sched_class->task_fork) > p->sched_class->task_fork(p); > Index: linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c > +++ linux-2.6/kernel/sched_fair.c > @@ -4086,8 +4086,14 @@ static void switched_from_fair(struct rq > * have normalized the vruntime, if it was !on_rq, then only when > * the task is sleeping will it still have non-normalized vruntime. > */ > - if (!se->on_rq && p->state != TASK_RUNNING) > + if (!se->on_rq && p->state != TASK_RUNNING) { > + /* > + * Fix up our vruntime so that the current sleep doesn't > + * cause 'unlimited' sleep bonus. > + */ > + place_entity(cfs_rq, se, 0); > se->vruntime -= cfs_rq->min_vruntime; Now I will say yes. Though it's same to my suggestion which was rejected by myself :) Thanks, Yong