mirror of
https://github.com/FEX-Emu/linux.git
synced 2024-12-17 14:30:00 +00:00
wait_task_inactive(): don't consider task->nivcsw
If wait_task_inactive() returns success the task was deactivated. In that case schedule() always increments ->nvcsw which alone can be used as a "generation counter". If the next call returns the same number, we can be sure that the task was unscheduled. Otherwise, because we know that .on_rq == 0 again, ->nvcsw should have been changed in between. Q: perhaps it is better to do "ncsw = (p->nvcsw << 1) | 1" ? This decreases the possibility of "was it unscheduled" false positive when ->nvcsw == 0. Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
parent
94d3d8247d
commit
f31e11d87a
@ -1921,11 +1921,8 @@ unsigned long wait_task_inactive(struct task_struct *p, long match_state)
|
||||
running = task_running(rq, p);
|
||||
on_rq = p->se.on_rq;
|
||||
ncsw = 0;
|
||||
if (!match_state || p->state == match_state) {
|
||||
ncsw = p->nivcsw + p->nvcsw;
|
||||
if (unlikely(!ncsw))
|
||||
ncsw = 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
if (!match_state || p->state == match_state)
|
||||
ncsw = p->nvcsw ?: 1;
|
||||
task_rq_unlock(rq, &flags);
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user