Andrew Morton wrote:
Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Nick Piggin wrote:
Bodo Stroesser wrote:
I don't see how this could help because AFAIKS, child->saving is only
set and cleared while the runqueue is locked. And the same runqueue lock
is taken by wait_task_inactive.
Sorry, that not right. There are some routines called by sched(), that
release
and reacquire the runqueue lock.
Oh yeah, it is the wake_sleeping_dependent / dependent_sleeper crap.
Sorry, you are right. And that's definitely a bug in sched.c, because
it breaks wait_task_inactive, as you've rightly observed.
Andrew, IMO this is another bug to hold 2.6.11 for.
Sure. I wouldn't consider Bodo's patch to be the one to use though..
No. Something similar could be done that works on all architectures
and all wait_task_inactive callers (and is confined to sched.c). That
would still be more or less a hack to work around smtnice's unfortunate
locking though.
-
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/
