[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061213151926.C12795@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:19:27 -0800
From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
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
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 12:31:57AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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.
I see.
> the other problem is load_balance(): there this_rq is locked and you
> call resched_cpu() unconditionally.
But here resched_cpu() was called after double_rq_unlock().
thanks,
suresh
-
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