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 S1755623Ab2APR00 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:26:26 -0500
Received: from mail-yw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.213.46]:59763 "EHLO
	mail-yw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754152Ab2APR0Y (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:26:24 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJd=RBCp+Pdkip7O+xRhGFU2kpFyJQmxeXR5dJu7xmQ2uNrW9Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADZ9YHicin2YjGm_m9B0LMv3NW1Z3cb7HSCaqwycFmVfRpvpWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1326302955.2442.174.camel@twins>
	<CADZ9YHiC8732D=D8KpkT0d+81_BNdAvj0ZJLwL5mhyq9OPLW0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1326353130.2442.177.camel@twins>
	<4F13D77B.9070103@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<CADZ9YHiNWddjLBGnvDO==Jpz9nQtPREmkFOX0P5ELOK2neW1=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJd=RBCp+Pdkip7O+xRhGFU2kpFyJQmxeXR5dJu7xmQ2uNrW9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:26:24 +0600
Message-ID: <CADZ9YHio6QkM3mQJrPFd-Pac_+o5BcHx=Qb7ppfx4OKgfq4Fhg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] sched: Should nr_uninterruptible be decremented in ttwu_do_activate()?
From: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com>
To: Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Michael Wang
>> <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> I think the task in rq->wake_list should already have state:TASK_WAKING,
>>> because it's a wake list.
>>>
>> But, what I got by means of TASK_WAKING is this task is about to RUN,
>> very soon it'll have TASK_RUNNING state. And, if I hadn't miss any
>> portion of code, then rq->wake_list doesn't have TASK_WAKING state.
>>
> Hi Rakib
>
> The question maybe settled down by adding a BUG_ON or similar to
> capture what you concern, and wait results while drinking tea or
> coffee.
>
Hi Hillf,

Thanks for your suggestions, will apply this technique when some new
confusion arises. Now, it's quite clear :)

Thanks,
Rakib