On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 04:21:40PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
I don't see a fundamental reason why it would be invalid to call
task_new_fair() when this_cpu != task_cpu(p). Besides, calling
activate_task->enqueue_task->enqueue_task_fair() on a new born task (as
is being done in the patch you have sent) is slightly buggy in the sense that
its p->se.vruntime is not properly calculated (because we set wakeup argument
as 0).
We (myself, Kamalesh and Dhaval) have tested the patch below, w/o being
able to recreate the problem. The patch allows for task_new_fair() to be
called even for the case when child is being added to another cpu's
runqueue.
--
Child task may be added on a different cpu that the one on which parent
is running. In which case, task_new_fair() should check whether the new
born task's parent entity should be added as well on the cfs_rq.
Patch below fixes the problem in task_new_fair.
Signed-off-by : Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
kernel/sched.c | 2 +-
kernel/sched_fair.c | 6 +-----
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Index: current/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- current.orig/kernel/sched.c
+++ current/kernel/sched.c
@@ -1712,7 +1712,7 @@ void fastcall wake_up_new_task(struct ta
p->prio = effective_prio(p);
- if (!p->sched_class->task_new || !current->se.on_rq || !rq->cfs.curr) {
+ if (!p->sched_class->task_new || !current->se.on_rq) {
activate_task(rq, p, 0);
} else {
/*
Index: current/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- current.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ current/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -1031,12 +1031,8 @@ static void task_new_fair(struct rq *rq,
swap(curr->vruntime, se->vruntime);
}
- update_stats_enqueue(cfs_rq, se);
- check_spread(cfs_rq, se);
- check_spread(cfs_rq, curr);
- __enqueue_entity(cfs_rq, se);
- account_entity_enqueue(cfs_rq, se);
se->peer_preempt = 0;
+ enqueue_task_fair(rq, p, 0);
resched_task(rq->curr);
}
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
