[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061213233157.GA20470@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:31:57 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc: nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, vatsa@...ibm.com, clameter@....com,
tglx@...utronix.de, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Patch: dynticks: idle load balancing
* Siddha, Suresh B <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:13:16AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > there's another bug as well: in schedule() resched_cpu() is called with
> > the current runqueue held in two places, which is deadlock potential.
>
> resched_cpu() was getting called after prepare_task_switch() which
> releases the current runqueue lock. Isn't it?
no, it doesnt release it. The finish stage is what releases it.
the other problem is load_balance(): there this_rq is locked and you
call resched_cpu() unconditionally.
Ingo
-
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