On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 04:10:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 09:59:07AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > ----- On Jun 2, 2021, at 9:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > When ran from the sched-out path (preempt_notifier or perf_event),
> > > p->state is irrelevant to determine preemption. You can get preempted
> > > with !task_is_running() just fine.
> > >
> > > The right indicator for preemption is if the task is still on the
> > > runqueue in the sched-out path.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/events/core.c | 7 +++----
> > > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +-
> > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > @@ -8568,13 +8568,12 @@ static void perf_event_switch(struct tas
> > > },
> > > };
> > >
> > > - if (!sched_in && task->state == TASK_RUNNING)
> > > + if (!sched_in && current->on_rq) {
> >
> > This changes from checking task->state to current->on_rq, but this change
> > from "task" to "current" is not described in the commit message, which is odd.
> >
> > Are we really sure that task == current here ?
>
> Yeah, @task == @prev == current at this point, but yes, not sure why I
> changed that... lemme change that back to task.
FWIW, with that:
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
I have no strong feelings either way w.r.t. the whitespace cleanup. ;)
Thanks,
Mark
