sched/core: Further clarify sched_class::set_next_task()
It turns out there really is something special to the first set_next_task() invocation. In specific the 'change' pattern really should not cause balance callbacks. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: bsegall@google.com Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: ktkhai@virtuozzo.com Cc: mgorman@suse.de Cc: qais.yousef@arm.com Cc: qperret@google.com Cc: rostedt@goodmis.org Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Fixes: f95d4eae ("sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task") Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191108131909.775434698@infradead.orgSigned-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment