Re: schedule() && prev/current (Was: [PATCH 3/3] Makeget_current() __attribute__((const)))

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Wed May 19 2010 - 06:30:24 EST

On 05/19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 23:22 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > And, looking at this patch I think that schedule() can be simplified
> > a little bit.
> >
> > "sched: Reassign prev and switch_count when reacquire_kernel_lock() fail"
> > commit 6d558c3ac9b6508d26fd5cadccce51fc9d726b1c says:
> >
> > Assume A->B schedule is processing,
> > ...
> > Then on B's context,
> > ...
> > prev and switch_count are related to A
> >
> > How so? switch_count - yes, we should change it. But prev must be
> > equal to B, and it must be equal to current. When we return from
> > switch_to() registers/stack should be restored correctly, so we
> > can do
> What if schedule() got called at a different stack depth than we are
> now?
> I don't think we can assume anything about the stack context we just
> switched to.

Not sure I understand...

OK. Firstly, we shouldn't worry about the freshly forked tasks, they
never "return" from switch_to() but call ret_from_fork()->schedule_tail(),

Now suppose that A calls schedule() and we switch to B. When switch_to()
returns on B's context, this context (register/stack) matches the previous
context which was used by B when it in turn called schedule(), correct?

IOW. B calls schedule, prev == B. schedule() picks another task, prev
is saved on B's stck after switch_to(). A calls schedule(), prev == A
before context_switch(A, B), but after that switch_to() switches to
B's stack and prev == B.


I am looking into the git history now... and I guess I understand why
reacquire_kernel_lock() uses current. Because schedule() did something

prev = context_switch(prev, next); // prev == last


reacquire_kernel_lock(current); // prev != current


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at