On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
quoted text
>
> Ah, sorry for the confusion, I only meant sched_exec() case.
> set_cpus_allowed_ptr() does need need_migrate_task(), of course.
>
>
> As for set_cpus_allowed_ptr()->need_migrate_task() path, I have another
> question,
>
>        static bool need_migrate_task(struct task_struct *p)
>        {
>                /*
>                 * If the task is not on a runqueue (and not running), then
>                 * the next wake-up will properly place the task.
>                 */
>                smp_rmb(); /* finish_lock_switch() */
>                return p->on_rq || p->on_cpu;
>        }
>
> I don't understand this smp_rmb(). Yes, finish_lock_switch() does
> wmb() before it clears ->on_cpu, but how these 2 barriers can pair?
>
> In fact, I am completely confused. I do not understand why do we
> check task_running() at all. If we see on_rq == 0 && on_cpu == 1,
> then this task is going to clear its on_cpu soon, once it finishes
> context_switch().
>
> Probably, this check was needed before, try_to_wake_up() could
> activate the task_running() task without migrating. But, at first
> glance, this is no longer possible after this series?

Yeah, task_running() is not needed after patch 13 which
may be the suitable place to poke :)

Thanks,
Yong

-- 
Only stand for myself
--
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/