Re: [RT] possible bug in trace_start_sched_wakeup

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 10:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >  	spin_lock(&sch.trace_lock);
> > -	if (sch.task && (sch.task->prio >= p->prio))
> > +	if (sch.task && ((sch.task->prio <= p->prio) || !rt_task(p)))
> >  		goto out_unlock;
> 
> good catch - but i'd not do the !rt_task(p) condition, because e.g. PI 
> related priority boosting works _without_ changing p->policy. So it is 
> p->prio that controls. I.e. a simple "sch.task->prio <= p->prio" should 
> be enough.

Ah, I don't know what I was thinking about the rt_task part (I was
working on very little sleep).  You're right.  Nuke it!

Thanks,

-- Steve


-
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/