Re: [RFC][PATCH 5/5] sched: Reduce ttwu rq->lock contention

[Yan, Zheng]

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -953,7 +955,7 @@ static inline struct rq *__task_rq_lock(
>        for (;;) {
>                rq = task_rq(p);
>                raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> -               if (likely(rq == task_rq(p)))
> +               if (likely(rq == task_rq(p)) && !task_is_waking(p))
>                        return rq;
>                raw_spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
>        }
> @@ -973,7 +975,7 @@ static struct rq *task_rq_lock(struct ta
>                local_irq_save(*flags);
>                rq = task_rq(p);
>                raw_spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> -               if (likely(rq == task_rq(p)))
> +               if (likely(rq == task_rq(p)) && !task_is_waking(p))
>                        return rq;
>                raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, *flags);
>        }

Looks like nothing prevents ttwu() from changing task's CPU while
some one else is holding task_rq_lock(). Is this OK?

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