On Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 17:05 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Dear RT Folks, > > > > I'm pleased to announce the 3.6.9-rt21 release. 3.6.7-rt18, 3.6.8-rt19 > > and 3.6.9-rt20 are not announced updates to the respective 3.6.y > > stable releases without any RT changes > > > > Changes since 3.6.9-rt20: > > > > * Fix the PREEMPT_LAZY implementation on ARM > > > > * Fix the RCUTINY issues > > > > * Fix a long standing scheduler bug (See commit log of > > sched-enqueue-to-head.patch) > > That last has an oversight buglet. > > sched: add missing userspace->kernel struct sched_param.sched_priority inversion > > Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > kernel/sched/core.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > @@ -4624,7 +4624,7 @@ static int __sched_setscheduler(struct t > p->sched_reset_on_fork = reset_on_fork; > > oldprio = p->prio; > - if (oldprio == param->sched_priority) > + if (oldprio == (MAX_RT_PRIO - 1) - param->sched_priority) > goto out; > > on_rq = p->on_rq; Duh, yes. But there is another one here: + enqueue_task(rq, p, oldprio < param->sched_priority ? + ENQUEUE_HEAD : 0); Bah. This reverse user/kernel priority nonsense really should go away! Thanks, tglx -- 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
