Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks

From	Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for deadline tasks
Date	2016-04-22 05:30 +0200
Message-ID	<rqzX3-3rj-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rnNMR-Ww-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rnNMR-Ww-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rq0cV-8rY-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <rq0FZ-fr-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

Hi Peter,

On 2016/04/20 at 21:49, Xunlei Pang wrote:
> On 2016/04/20 at 21:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 07:37:03PM +0800, Xunlei Pang wrote:
>>> +	/* Updated under pi_lock and rtmutex lock */
>>>  	struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost;
>>> +	struct rb_node *pi_waiters_leftmost_copy;
>>>  struct task_struct *rt_mutex_get_top_task(struct task_struct *task)
>>>  {
>>> +	if (!task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy)
>>>  		return NULL;
>>>  
>>> +	return rb_entry(task->pi_waiters_leftmost_copy,
>>> +				struct rt_mutex_waiter, pi_tree_entry)->task;
>>>  }
>> why ?! Why not keep a regular task_struct pointer and avoid this stuff?
> I meant to make it semantically consistent, but I can change it since you think task_struct is better.

What do you think this version of PATCH1 and PATCH2?
If you are fine with it, I can sent it out as v4 separately, then we can focus on the issue in PATCH5.

Thanks!

>
> Regards,
> Xunlei

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for  deadline tasks Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-04-20 15:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for  deadline tasks Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com> - 2016-04-20 15:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] sched/rtmutex/deadline: Fix a PI crash for  deadline tasks Xunlei Pang <xpang@redhat.com> - 2016-04-22 05:30 +0200

csiph-web