On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 17:35 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
> > 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?
> 
> It can still do that, I think the problem is us dropping rq->lock in the
> middle of schedule(), when the freshly woken migration thread comes in
> between there and moves the task away, you can get into the situation
> that two cpus reference the same task_struct at the same time, which
> usually leads to 'interesting' situations. 

Frr, brainfart, you cannot schedule the migration thread without
completely finishing prev.

/me goes ponder more
--
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/