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: f95d4eae ("sched/{rt,deadline}: Fix set_next_task vs pick_next_task")
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191108131909.775434698@infradead.orgSigned-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>