>>> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 8:43 AM, in message <1216384984.28405.36.camel@twins>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 15:37 -0600, Gregory Haskins wrote: >> The load may change with the priority, so be sure to recompute its value. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@xxxxxxxxxx> >> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> > > Right, but in this case we'd need to do the dec/inc load game again > because otherwise we'll skew stuff - see the previuos mail on how > dequeue_task() doesn't actually do that. > > Also, it looks like current mainline still has this issue. > > OTOH - since prio boosting is a temporal feature, not changing the load > isn't too bad, we ought to get back to where we came from pretty > quickly. Yeah, I agree. This issue probably didn't actually matter much in practice. It just "looked" wrong, so I figured I'd fix it ;) -Greg > > > >> --- >> >> kernel/sched.c | 1 + >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c >> index b046754..c3f41b9 100644 >> --- a/kernel/sched.c >> +++ b/kernel/sched.c >> @@ -4637,6 +4637,7 @@ void task_setprio(struct task_struct *p, int prio) >> p->sched_class = &fair_sched_class; >> >> p->prio = prio; >> + set_load_weight(p); >> >> // trace_special_pid(p->pid, __PRIO(oldprio), PRIO(p)); >> prev_resched = _need_resched(); >> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
