Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] sync a se with its cfs_rq when att(det)aching it

Byungchul Park
2015-08-21T00:01:44Z

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:11:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 07:46:09PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 05:38:41PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 03:17:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I did something like this on top.. please have a look at the XXX and
> > > > integrate.
> > >
> > > i am not sure, what do you intend for me to do.
> > >
> > > do you mean that i am supposed to integrate this cleanup patch you gave me
> > > including the XXX comment?
>
> No, the intent was for you to think about the point marked XXX, which
> you've done below.
>
> > > > + *
> > > > + * XXX this appears wrong!! check history,
> > > > + * we appear to always set queued and RUNNING under the same lock instance
> > > > + * might be from before TASK_WAKING ?
> > > > */
> > >
> > > is it impossible to happen to check if vruntime is normalized, when doing
> > > something like e.g. active load balance where queued != TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED
> > > and p->state == TASK_RUNNING?
> >
> > furthermore, in any migration by load balance, it seems to be possible..
> >
> > >
> > > i think it can happen..
>
> OK, then we need to change the comment to reflect the actual reason the
> test is needed. Because I think the currently described scenario is
> incorrect.

what is the currently described scenario to need to change?

then.. did i change patches as what you suggested, in v4?

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/