From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752708Ab2ALGJ2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:09:28 -0500
Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174]:53799 "EHLO
	mail-yx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752537Ab2ALGJ1 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:09:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1326302955.2442.174.camel@twins>
References: <CADZ9YHicin2YjGm_m9B0LMv3NW1Z3cb7HSCaqwycFmVfRpvpWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1326302955.2442.174.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:09:27 +0600
Message-ID: <CADZ9YHiC8732D=D8KpkT0d+81_BNdAvj0ZJLwL5mhyq9OPLW0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] sched: Should nr_uninterruptible be decremented in ttwu_do_activate()?
From: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 23:22 +0600, Rakib Mullick wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> In ttwu_do_activate(), we're decrementing nr_uninterruptible if
>> p->sched_contributes_to_load (for SMP=y). But, we're also decrementing
>> nr_uninterruptible from activate_task at the same path. Why we're
>> doing it twice for a single task activation path?
>
> activate_task() does:
>
>  if (task_contributes_to_load(p))
>   rq->nr_uninterruptible--;
>
> Now task_contributes_to_load() reads like:
>
> #define task_contributes_to_load(task)  \
>                                ((task->state & TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) != 0 && \
>                                 (task->flags & PF_FREEZING) == 0)
>
> which will be false, since we've set TASK_WAKING.

Enough confusing. TASK_WAKING will be set when called from
try_to_wake_up(). ttwu_do_activate() gets called from other places:
scheduler_ipi() and sched_ttwu_pending() (at the time of cpu goes
down). TASK_WAKING will be not set at that time, moreover it is
possible that, task has p->sched_contributes_to_load is set and latter
on gets wake up by sched_ttwu_pending/scheduler_ipi() call.

Thanks,
Rakib