[PATCH v2 5/7] sched/core: Reset RQCF_ACT_SKIP before unpinning rq->lock

[Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>]

rq_clock() is called from sched_info_{depart,arrive}() after resetting
RQCF_ACT_SKIP but prior to a call to update_rq_clock().

In preparation for pending patches that check whether the rq clock has
been updated inside of a pin context before rq_clock() is called, move
the reset of rq->clock_skip_update immediately before unpinning the rq
lock.

This will avoid the new warnings which check if update_rq_clock() is
being actively skipped.

Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
---
 kernel/sched/core.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
index 7950c372fca0..1254629c9f2f 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/core.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
@@ -2871,6 +2871,9 @@ context_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev,
 		prev->active_mm = NULL;
 		rq->prev_mm = oldmm;
 	}
+
+	rq->clock_skip_update = 0;
+
 	/*
 	 * Since the runqueue lock will be released by the next
 	 * task (which is an invalid locking op but in the case
@@ -3387,7 +3390,6 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
 	next = pick_next_task(rq, prev, &rf);
 	clear_tsk_need_resched(prev);
 	clear_preempt_need_resched();
-	rq->clock_skip_update = 0;
 
 	if (likely(prev != next)) {
 		rq->nr_switches++;
@@ -3397,6 +3399,7 @@ static void __sched notrace __schedule(bool preempt)
 		trace_sched_switch(preempt, prev, next);
 		rq = context_switch(rq, prev, next, &rf); /* unlocks the rq */
 	} else {
+		rq->clock_skip_update = 0;
 		rq_unpin_lock(rq, &rf);
 		raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
 	}
-- 
2.9.3