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: f95d4eaee6d0 ("sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task")
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191108131909.775434698@infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
diff --git a/kernel/sched/idle.c b/kernel/sched/idle.c
index f88b79e..428cd05 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/idle.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/idle.c
@@ -385,7 +385,7 @@ static void put_prev_task_idle(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
{
}
-static void set_next_task_idle(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next)
+static void set_next_task_idle(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *next, bool first)
{
update_idle_core(rq);
schedstat_inc(rq->sched_goidle);
@@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ struct task_struct *pick_next_task_idle(struct rq *rq)
{
struct task_struct *next = rq->idle;
- set_next_task_idle(rq, next);
+ set_next_task_idle(rq, next, true);
return next;
}
