[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060803182634.GD4368@implementation.labri.fr>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:26:34 +0200
From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix initialization of runqueues
Steven Rostedt, le Thu 03 Aug 2006 11:07:37 -0400, a écrit :
> On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 18:57 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Ingo Molnar, le Wed 02 Aug 2006 17:24:19 +0200, a écrit :
> > >
> > > * Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > There's an odd thing about the nr_active field in arrays of
> > > > runqueue_t: it is actually never initialized to 0!... This doesn't
> > > > yet trigger a bug probably because the way runqueues are allocated
> > > > make it so that it is already initialized to 0, but that's not a safe
> > > > way. Here is a patch:
> > >
> > > we do rely on zero initialization of bss (and percpu) data in a number
> > > of places.
> >
> > The rest of runqueue initialization doesn't rely on that, and as
> > a result people might think that it is safe to allocate runqueues
> > dynamically.
>
> I don't buy the "safe to allocate runqueues dynamically" bit since they
> are local to sched.c and if you do do that (I did for a customer once)
> you better know what you're doing.
Yes, but as you agreed, initializing some members to 0 and not others
doesn't help to know what you're doing :)
Samuel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists