Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755650Ab0ASIrK (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:47:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755601Ab0ASIrJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:47:09 -0500 Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:47829 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755542Ab0ASIrG (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:47:06 -0500 Message-ID: <4B556D44.1060101@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:28:52 +0900 From: Tejun Heo User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091130 SUSE/3.0.0-1.1.1 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@elte.hu, awalls@radix.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, cl@linux-foundation.org, dhowells@redhat.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, avi@redhat.com, johannes@sipsolutions.net, andi@firstfloor.org, Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/40] sched: add wakeup/sleep sched_notifiers and allow NULL notifier ops References: <1263776272-382-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1263776272-382-7-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1263808633.4283.152.camel@laptop> <4B5446A1.7070306@kernel.org> <1263818967.4283.459.camel@laptop> <4B55050B.5020600@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <4B55050B.5020600@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 (hera.kernel.org [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:46:05 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1183 Lines: 30 Hello, On 01/19/2010 10:04 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> I'm thinking that we can place it next to activate_task(), if it makes >> you feel better you can place them both at the end up ttwu_activate() >> instead of in the middle. >> >> Esp. with the callback you have it really doesn't matter. > > Alright, if it's safe, there's no reason to keep it separate with an > extra branch. I'll move it. Alright, was trying to convert it and I'm still a bit worried. One of the reasons I put it at the end of post_activation() is to allow calling try_to_wake_up_local() from wakeup callback. This won't be used by cmwq right now but making it symmetrical to sleep callback would be more consistent, so... If we fire wakeup callback right after activate_task() and allow try_to_wake_up_local() to be called from it, wake up logic ends up being nested inside outer wake up which is still in progress. Would that be safe too? Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/