On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 11:59:15AM +0100, Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
quoted text
> > - The second problem exposed by this test is that task_new_fair()
> >   assumes that parent and child will be part of the same group (which
> >   needn't be as this test shows). As a result, cfs_rq->curr can be NULL
> >   for the child.
> 
> Would it be better, logically-wise, to use is_same_group() instead?
> Although, we can't have 2 groups with cfs_rq->curr != NULL on the same
> CPU... so if the child belongs to another group, it's cfs_rq->curr is
> automatically NULL indeed.

Yeah ..I feel safe with an explicit !curr check, perhaps with a comment like
below added to explain when curr can be NULL?


---
 kernel/sched_fair.c |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertion(+)

Index: current/kernel/sched_fair.c
===================================================================
--- current.orig/kernel/sched_fair.c
+++ current/kernel/sched_fair.c
@@ -1022,6 +1022,7 @@ static void task_new_fair(struct rq *rq,
 	update_curr(cfs_rq);
 	place_entity(cfs_rq, se, 1);
 
+	/* 'curr' will be NULL if the child belongs to a different group */
 	if (sysctl_sched_child_runs_first && this_cpu == task_cpu(p) &&
 			curr && curr->vruntime < se->vruntime) {
 		/*



-- 
Regards,
vatsa
-
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/