Commit 2d467090 authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Ingo Molnar

sched: Fix runnable condition for stoptask

Heiko reported that the TASK_RUNNING check is not sufficient for
CONFIG_PREEMPT=y since we can get preempted with !TASK_RUNNING.

He suggested adding a ->se.on_rq test to the existing TASK_RUNNING
one, however TASK_RUNNING will always have ->se.on_rq, so we might as
well reduce that to a single test.

[ stop tasks should never get preempted, but its good to handle
  this case correctly should this ever happen ]
Reported-by: default avatarHeiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
parent aae6d3dd
...@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_next_task_stop(struct rq *rq) ...@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_next_task_stop(struct rq *rq)
{ {
struct task_struct *stop = rq->stop; struct task_struct *stop = rq->stop;
if (stop && stop->state == TASK_RUNNING) if (stop && stop->se.on_rq)
return stop; return stop;
return NULL; return NULL;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment