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 S1751331AbcBMMKW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sat, 13 Feb 2016 07:10:22 -0500
Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:55964 "EHLO
	casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750858AbcBMMKV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sat, 13 Feb 2016 07:10:21 -0500
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 13:09:53 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@hpe.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@huawei.com>,
        Jason Low <jason.low2@hpe.com>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] sched/fair: Abort wakeup when task is no longer
 in a sleeping state
Message-ID: <20160213120953.GA6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1455298335-53229-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
 <1455298335-53229-5-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
 <20160212201845.GX6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <56BE4D15.4000002@hpe.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56BE4D15.4000002@hpe.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:22:29PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:

> >>+	smp_cond_acquire(!p->on_cpu || !(p->state&  state));
> >>+	if (!(p->state&  state)) {
> >>+		success = 0;
> >>+		goto out;
> >>+	}
> >This doesn't make sense, if we managed to get here, p->on_rq must be
> >false, which means the other side is already in the middle of
> >schedule().
> Yes, you are right. It is my bad that I miss the on_rq check earlier. Just
> scrap the last patch.

No worries, that is tricky code :-)