Re: [PATCH v6 2/3] sched/rt: Fix wrong SMP scheduler behavior for equal prio cases

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 01:48:03PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:20:48 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > > +		 */
> > > > +		if (preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE)
> > > > +			enqueue_pushable_task_preempted(rq, p);
> > > > +		else
> > > > +			enqueue_pushable_task(rq, p);
> > > > +	}
> > > >  }
> > 
> > This looks wrong, what do you want to find? _any_ preemption? In that
> > case PREEMPT_ACTIVE is wrong. What you need to check is if the task is
> > still on the RQ or not.
> > 
> > If the task was put to sleep it got dequeued, if it was not dequeued, it
> > got preempted.
> > 
> > PREEMPT_ACTIVE is only ever set for forced kernel preemption, which is a
> > special sub case only ever triggered with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.
> 
> Ah, you're right. I was thinking of just forced preemption, but, I
> wasn't thinking about voluntary preemption (preemption points). We want
> this behavior for that too (for kernel).
> 
> And yes, if we preempt in user space, this isn't enough either.
> 
> Actually, I think we only care if the state of the task is
> TASK_RUNNING, if it is anything else, the task is probably going to
> sleep anyway and we don't care about FIFO order then.

Please don't try and be clever there :-) Task state can be misleading,
you might get a wakeup before you're running again, in which case you
never went to sleep.

Please use task_on_rq_queued(p) like all other sites.
--
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/