lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16
Anton Blanchard wrote:

> One way to solve this is to always take runqueues in cpu id order. To do
> this we add a cpu variable to the runqueue and check it in the
> double runqueue locking functions.
>
> Thoughts?
>

You're right. I can't think of a better fix, although we've been trying
to avoid adding cpu to the runqueue structure.

I was going to suggest moving more work into wake_sleeping_dependent
instead, but cores with 4 and more threads now make that less desirable
I suppose.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-03-22 12:56    [W:0.053 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site