From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 279D430B53D for ; Mon, 15 Sep 2025 12:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757939089; cv=none; b=fOMqn5ufi3QhV+HTG8Z/xMzpMgfAMpHpw4XWYWTkltdIqu9P16Cl1BIeii/Pi+QhHa4kmpz1EnFpdn2svPVjKOO5B0qrF4mE5ntI0oSFjtsv/vnOTNRcVclCMUHIE2Z4Lq9rT3YxyF7ywXaIqbS4SNzivetpPlWmAqgn71AA32A= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757939089; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/siky0mWqlUtrQlrqmrfLod+4cn0kDw8MIW2UWnQ6k8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=CxkaDMdLHGabMJbz6/CkxR3ldAZL2valaZMPdmuZv1MNTCmrPJ3MA6Qid83PzEQXX3L2CvPEwSGpow/krIo5WzasZMC8PV2lqJ7uUCskS2DeaWkvpsqevUYzNlLxm4j+6KvKdLAEfEZcoDBxpRbN2lWSrBVqtKjqfNHTb0PcI7o= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=sDLtGh2w; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=9ZsCjFYo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="sDLtGh2w"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="9ZsCjFYo" Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 14:24:44 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1757939086; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/siky0mWqlUtrQlrqmrfLod+4cn0kDw8MIW2UWnQ6k8=; b=sDLtGh2weupEnwyICVrLK0nl8nR/FMVv48BImBzBQb6nS8tJ7Dai+KzZ/H5SGFLdbv18Cd XkWzCbhP9qJ6QZxdAoQJ5K/JGKaliK+KqCByQyU05yGnJ1kvzL38gqsOHCgY69NNc/NMJg kxPKLHNdbgobat3vjDp9kSyH3NhPMqTUGRkgYQ4zCrnILwhhgVIUp17Gw5WDbBxUMTxphi 2x6fqcCcTwI0yCTWKO9S24p0iSoMNGXMAgPy1CGlE+w2En3Q1tr7bMbG34bbG/yR3xIsfn DZ18TY4XWKF+r9UH+/Oqsens/T7pOF5XSXn5eFD+7U8Wq715yAbPJnHGsEkmqw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1757939086; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/siky0mWqlUtrQlrqmrfLod+4cn0kDw8MIW2UWnQ6k8=; b=9ZsCjFYomIoQ4s3MtS4NtKkmly5HEV/nFGYmKPJy1QLRRjNG0tZruCja8F9sPrbgtKEh2T uV8bmxFypzDlv4BA== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" , Oleg Nesterov , Clark Williams , Steven Rostedt , Tejun Heo , David Vernet , Barret Rhoden , Josh Don , Crystal Wood , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@lists.linux.dev, Juri Lelli , Ben Segall , Dietmar Eggemann , Ingo Molnar , Mel Gorman , Valentin Schneider , Vincent Guittot , Thomas Gleixner , Wander Lairson Costa Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] sched: restore the behavior of put_task_struct() for non-rt Message-ID: <20250915122444.Gg_Tsymz@linutronix.de> References: <20250915113812.GB3245006@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250915113812.GB3245006@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> On 2025-09-15 13:38:12 [+0200], Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Right, but I thought we did want to make this behaviour consistent. That is correct, that is what I asked for (either consistent or a compelling reason why not). Oleg pointed out that the patch description does not match the change. That is the only complaint. > And IIRC RT has been running with this for ages, and never seen a > problem. The syz-bot picked up RT recently. Other than that, yes, RT had it for ages. Sebastian