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>

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/sched/deadline.c b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
index f7fbb4427959..43323f875cb9 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/deadline.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/deadline.c
@@ -1743,13 +1743,16 @@ static void start_hrtick_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
 }
 #endif
 
-static void set_next_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
+static void set_next_task_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, bool first)
 {
 	p->se.exec_start = rq_clock_task(rq);
 
 	/* You can't push away the running task */
 	dequeue_pushable_dl_task(rq, p);
 
+	if (!first)
+		return;
+
 	if (hrtick_enabled(rq))
 		start_hrtick_dl(rq, p);
 
@@ -1782,7 +1785,7 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_next_task_dl(struct rq *rq)
 	dl_se = pick_next_dl_entity(rq, dl_rq);
 	BUG_ON(!dl_se);
 	p = dl_task_of(dl_se);
-	set_next_task_dl(rq, p);
+	set_next_task_dl(rq, p, true);
 	return p;
 }