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, 2 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/sched/stop_task.c b/kernel/sched/stop_task.c
index 0aefdfb79b36..4c9e9975684f 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/stop_task.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/stop_task.c
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ check_preempt_curr_stop(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
 	/* we're never preempted */
 }
 
-static void set_next_task_stop(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *stop)
+static void set_next_task_stop(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *stop, bool first)
 {
 	stop->se.exec_start = rq_clock_task(rq);
 }
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ static struct task_struct *pick_next_task_stop(struct rq *rq)
 	if (!sched_stop_runnable(rq))
 		return NULL;
 
-	set_next_task_stop(rq, rq->stop);
+	set_next_task_stop(rq, rq->stop, true);
 	return rq->stop;
 }