Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 11 May 2020 12:58:00 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Scott Wood <swood@redhat.com>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Call newidle_balance() from
 finish_task_switch()
Message-ID: <20200511105800.GB2940@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200428050242.17717-1-swood@redhat.com>
 <20200428050242.17717-2-swood@redhat.com>
 <jhjftcns35d.mognet@arm.com>
 <20200428220917.GB16027@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <c4a8d1f044b721a2c396fa00a0244eff0b851ae4.camel@redhat.com>
 <20200428230204.GE16027@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <89043649a64fc97dd90eb25c85bcc8f65483cf4f.camel@redhat.com>
 <20200429090533.GH13592@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <0945b70535f11c9abd45d3a3da2e984c4b1d832b.camel@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <0945b70535f11c9abd45d3a3da2e984c4b1d832b.camel@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:31:39PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > If you were to do a queue_balance_callback() from somewhere in the
> > pick_next_task() machinery, then the balance_callback() at the end of
> > __schedule() would run it, and it'd be gone. How would
> > rt_mutex_setprio() / __sched_setscheduler() be affected?
> 
> The rq lock is dropped between queue_balance_callback() and the
> balance_callback() at the end of __schedule().  What stops
> setprio/setscheduler on another cpu from doing the callback at that
> point?

Hurmm.. fair point, and that might explain some issues I had a while
back. Let me poke a little at that.