On 01/03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
>
> On Wed, 2010-12-29 at 22:31 +0800, Yong Zhang wrote:
> > > -	/*
> > > -	 * select_task_rq() can race against ->cpus_allowed
> > > -	 */
> > > -	if (cpumask_test_cpu(dest_cpu, &p->cpus_allowed) &&
> > > -	    likely(cpu_active(dest_cpu)) && migrate_task(p, rq)) {
> > > +	if (likely(cpu_active(dest_cpu)) && need_migrate_task(p)) {
> >
> > If we drop rq_lock, need_migrate_task() maybe return true but
> > p is already running on other cpu. Thus we do a wrong migration
> > call.
>
> Yeah, too bad.. ;-) exec load balancing is more an optimistic thing
> anyway, if it got rebalanced under out feet we don't care.

I don't understand this need_migrate_task() at all (with or without
the patch). This task is current/running, it should always return T.

I guess, migrate_task() was needed before to initialize migration_req.

Oleg.

--
unsubscribe notice
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/