summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/block/blk-mq.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPeter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>2014-02-14 12:25:08 +0100
committerIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>2014-02-27 12:41:02 +0100
commit37e117c07b89194aae7062bc63bde1104c03db02 (patch)
tree770312bf789e367b8f2102e9f8de743f05efeeac /block/blk-mq.c
parent06d50c65b1043b166d102accc081093f79d8f7e5 (diff)
downloadlinux-37e117c07b89194aae7062bc63bde1104c03db02.tar.bz2
sched: Guarantee task priority in pick_next_task()
Michael spotted that the idle_balance() push down created a task priority problem. Previously, when we called idle_balance() before pick_next_task() it wasn't a problem when -- because of the rq->lock droppage -- an rt/dl task slipped in. Similarly for pre_schedule(), rt pre-schedule could have a dl task slip in. But by pulling it into the pick_next_task() loop, we'll not try a higher task priority again. Cure this by creating a re-start condition in pick_next_task(); and triggering this from pick_next_task_{rt,fair}(). It also fixes a live-lock where we get stuck in pick_next_task_fair() due to idle_balance() seeing !0 nr_running but there not actually being any fair tasks about. Reported-by: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Fixes: 38033c37faab ("sched: Push down pre_schedule() and idle_balance()") Tested-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140224121218.GR15586@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'block/blk-mq.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions