Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
To:     mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org
Cc:     rostedt@goodmis.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
Subject: [PATCH v3] sched/rt : return accurate release rq lock info
Date:   Sat, 6 Oct 2018 06:22:11 +0800
Message-Id: <1538778131-44406-1-git-send-email-peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

find_lock_lowest_rq may or not releease rq lock when return
lowest_rq=NULL, but it is fuzzy.
If not releasing rq lock, it is unnecessary to re-call
pick_next_pushable_task.
When CONFIG_PREEMPT=n, not releasing rq lock and return
lowest_rq=null frequently happens in a simple test case:
Four different rt priority tasks run on limited two cpus.
Thanks for Steven Rostedt's advice.

Signed-off-by: Peng Hao <peng.hao2@zte.com.cn>
---
 kernel/sched/rt.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/rt.c b/kernel/sched/rt.c
index 2e2955a..be0fc43 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/rt.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/rt.c
@@ -1754,7 +1754,7 @@ static struct rq *find_lock_lowest_rq(struct task_struct *task, struct rq *rq)
 				     !task_on_rq_queued(task))) {
 
 				double_unlock_balance(rq, lowest_rq);
-				lowest_rq = NULL;
+				lowest_rq = RETRY_TASK;
 				break;
 			}
 		}
@@ -1830,7 +1830,9 @@ static int push_rt_task(struct rq *rq)
 
 	/* find_lock_lowest_rq locks the rq if found */
 	lowest_rq = find_lock_lowest_rq(next_task, rq);
-	if (!lowest_rq) {
+	if (!lowest_rq)
+		goto out;
+	if (lowest_rq == RETRY_TASK) {
 		struct task_struct *task;
 		/*
 		 * find_lock_lowest_rq releases rq->lock
-- 
1.8.3.1