* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:28:04 -0700 > "Paul E. McKenney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > + while (!startwriters) > > + barrier(); /* Force scheduler to spread over CPUs. */ > > one wonders whether a cpu_relax() would be a bit nicer here. That > implicitly does a barrier(). > > This patch doesn't make much sense for non-SMP builds?
i think this patch should be unnecessary because we found the real SMP balancing bug in the upstream scheduler causing this rcu problem, see: commit 92c4ca5c3a5e180e9762438db235f41d192cb955 Author: Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat Jun 23 17:16:33 2007 -0700 sched: fix next_interval determination in idle_balance() Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/