> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 09:50:19PM -0200, Rodrigo Siqueira wrote: > > > Yes, this is correct. However it had me looking at that code and pretty > > > much everything else is completely wrong :-) > > > > > > That is, its functionally correct (probably), but the function name is > > > not descriptive of what the function does and the comment is just plain > > > wrong. > > > > > > Also, since both functions are only used in core.c we should probably > > > move them there. > > > > I'm not sure I understood it completely. What do you mean for wrong? Will > > CONFIG_SMP a meaningless check here? > > So the actual effective code is ok; including the #ifdef for SMP. But > the comment is complete nonsense. > > Look at the comments: > > - in finish_lock_switch() doing smp_store_release() > - before try_to_wake_up() describing migration/blocking > - in try_to_wake_up() doing smp_cond_load_acquire(). > > To get a feeling for what on_cpu actually does; it doesn't have anything > much to do with SMP rebalancing code from interrupt contexts (although > that too still cares through can_migrate_task() <- task_running()). > > > How about moving 'prepare_lock_switch' code from sched.h to prepare_task_switch > > in core.c? > > With a rename; yes. Maybe something like 'acquire_task()' would do. > > Then split the smp_store_release() out from finish_lock_switch() and > call it release_task(), and place is near the new acquire_task() > function -- don't forget to update all comments referring to > finish_lock_switch(). > > This then leaves the actual rq->lock fiddling in finish_lock_switch(); > and that whole function too can be moved to core.c, somewhere near > finish_task_switch() I think. Got it! I am working on it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
