From a0e813f26ebcb25c0b5e504498fbd796cca1a4ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:16:00 +0100 Subject: sched/core: Further clarify sched_class::set_next_task() It turns out there really is something special to the first set_next_task() invocation. In specific the 'change' pattern really should not cause balance callbacks. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: bsegall@google.com Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: ktkhai@virtuozzo.com Cc: mgorman@suse.de Cc: qais.yousef@arm.com Cc: qperret@google.com Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Fixes: f95d4eaee6d0 ("sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task") Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191108131909.775434698@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/sched/stop_task.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'kernel/sched/stop_task.c') diff --git a/kernel/sched/stop_task.c b/kernel/sched/stop_task.c index 0aefdfb79b36..4c9e9975684f 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/stop_task.c +++ b/kernel/sched/stop_task.c @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ check_preempt_curr_stop(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags) /* we're never preempted */ } -static void set_next_task_stop(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *stop) +static void set_next_task_stop(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *stop, bool first) { stop->se.exec_start = rq_clock_task(rq); } @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_next_task_stop(struct rq *rq) if (!sched_stop_runnable(rq)) return NULL; - set_next_task_stop(rq, rq->stop); + set_next_task_stop(rq, rq->stop, true); return rq->stop; } -- cgit v1.2.3-59-g8ed1b