Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:18:40 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] move put_task_struct() reaping into a thread [Re: 2.6.18-rt1] | From | Bill Huey (hui) <> |
| |
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:54:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Bill Huey <billh@gnuppy.monkey.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:19:07PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > I'm pleased to announce the 2.6.18-rt1 tree, which can be downloaded > > > from the usual place: > > ... > > > as usual, bugreports, fixes and suggestions are welcome, > > > > Speaking of which... > > > > This patch moves put_task_struct() reaping into a thread instead of an > > RCU callback function [...] > > had some time to think about it since yesterday: RCU reaping is done in > softirqs (check out the softirq-rcu threads on your -rt box), that's why > i removed the delayed-task-drop code to begin with. Now i dont doubt
It's correct from the standpoint of it being reaped in another thread, so it fixed those crashes. But I pushed it down into another thread at the request of Esben and his private discussion with Paul McKenney, since a summary from Esben felt that call_rcu() was somehow less than ideal to do that.
> that you saw crashes under 2.6.17 - but did you manage to figure out > what the reason is for those crashes, and do those reasons really > necessiate the pushing of task-reapdown into yet another set of kernel > threads?
Unfortunately no. I even used Robert's .config on my machine. I added a disk controller and networking device driver just to boot into his configuration and I still couldn't replicated any of his kjournald problems at all. If I had his hardware I'd have a better way of replicating those problems and pound it out.
bill
- 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/
| |