Re: [PATCH 0/6] sched/cpusets fixes, more changes are needed

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 03/25, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Yeah, such a smaller patch might work too, but I was trying to remove
> some more of the complexity we grown.
>
> Being able to fully remove that TASK_WAKING check from task_rq_lock()
> and only have it in set_cpus_allowed_ptr() would reduce some fast-path
> logic.

OK. Agreed.

> You patch add a memory barrier and an unlock_wait(), which, while
> seemingly correct, are harder to parse than the modified locking.

Yes, lock + set WAKING + unlock is simpler and cleaner, but this
doesn't matter.

I think your patch should address all problems.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/