Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 17:38:41 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yuyang.du@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] sync a se with its cfs_rq when att(det)aching it
Message-ID: <20150820083841.GH24261@byungchulpark-X58A-UD3R>
References: <1439966836-11266-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20150820011721.GA3138@worktop.event.rightround.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150820011721.GA3138@worktop.event.rightround.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 956
Lines: 29

On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 03:17:21AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> I did something like this on top.. please have a look at the XXX and
> integrate.

i am not sure, what do you intend for me to do.

do you mean that i am supposed to integrate this cleanup patch you gave me
including the XXX comment?

> +	 *
> +	 * XXX this appears wrong!! check history, 
> +	 * we appear to always set queued and RUNNING under the same lock instance
> +	 * might be from before TASK_WAKING ?
>  	 */

is it impossible to happen to check if vruntime is normalized, when doing
something like e.g. active load balance where queued != TASK_ON_RQ_QUEUED
and p->state == TASK_RUNNING?

i think it can happen..

thanks,
byungchul
--
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/