Re: [RT] possible bug in trace_start_sched_wakeup

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

Ingo,

I'm assuming that this was a bug, so I'm patching it.  I made it now
test to see if the new process is realtime and higher priority than the
current tracing process to continue.

I'll analyze it more tomorrow (after a few hours of sleep) to see if
this makes sense, as well as hope that you have a comment or two saying
it does, or if it doesn't, to enlighten me to why.

Thanks,

-- Steve


Index: linux-2.6.15-rt15/kernel/latency.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.15-rt15.orig/kernel/latency.c	2006-01-25 17:02:26.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.15-rt15/kernel/latency.c	2006-01-26 21:03:30.000000000 -0500
@@ -1908,7 +1908,7 @@
 		return;
 
 	spin_lock(&sch.trace_lock);
-	if (sch.task && (sch.task->prio >= p->prio))
+	if (sch.task && ((sch.task->prio <= p->prio) || !rt_task(p)))
 		goto out_unlock;
 
 	/*
@@ -1974,7 +1974,7 @@
 	} else {
 		if (sch.task)
 			trace_special_pid(sch.task->pid, sch.task->prio, p->prio);
-		if (sch.task && (sch.task->prio >= p->prio))
+		if (sch.task && ((sch.task->prio <= p->prio) || !rt_task(p)))
 			sch.task = NULL;
 		spin_unlock(&sch.trace_lock);
 	}


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/