Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched: fix cgroup movement of newly created process

[Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:41:09 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:

> On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 15:57 +0900, Daisuke Nishimura wrote:
> 
> >  kernel/sched_fair.c |    4 ++--
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> you blink you loose, that file doesn't exist anymore.
> 
hmm, indeed.
I'll rebase these patches onto the tip.

> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched_fair.c b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > index 5c9e679..df145a9 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c
> > @@ -4922,10 +4922,10 @@ static void task_move_group_fair(struct task_struct *p, int on_rq)
> >  	 * to another cgroup's rq. This does somewhat interfere with the
> >  	 * fair sleeper stuff for the first placement, but who cares.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (!on_rq)
> > +	if (!on_rq && p->state != TASK_RUNNING)
> >  		p->se.vruntime -= cfs_rq_of(&p->se)->min_vruntime;
> >  	set_task_rq(p, task_cpu(p));
> > -	if (!on_rq)
> > +	if (!on_rq && p->state != TASK_RUNNING)
> >  		p->se.vruntime += cfs_rq_of(&p->se)->min_vruntime;
> >  }
> >  #endif
> 
> The much saner way of writing that is something like:
> 
>  /*
>   * Comment explaining stuff..
>   */
>  if (!on_rq && p->state == TASK_RUNNING)
> 	on_rq = 1;
> 
>  ...
> 
will do in the next post.

Thanks,
Daisuke Nishimura.