From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754704Ab2APNAG (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:00:06 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:37987 "EHLO mail-wi0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753178Ab2APNAE (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:00:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1326302955.2442.174.camel@twins> <1326353130.2442.177.camel@twins> <4F13D77B.9070103@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:00:02 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Question] sched: Should nr_uninterruptible be decremented in ttwu_do_activate()? From: Hillf Danton To: Rakib Mullick Cc: Michael Wang , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Rakib Mullick wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Michael Wang > 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. Best regards Hillf