[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1221502142.19012.35.camel@bobble.smo.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:09:02 -0700
From: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.27-rc5 resubmit] Fix itimer/many thread hang.
On Sun, 2008-09-14 at 17:09 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> the patch wasnt built on UP i guess - see the fix below.
Yeah, I've been focusing so much on getting the SMP case right that I've
been neglecting UP a bit.
> the wider question is, shouldnt the UP case be just the same as the SMP
> case? Especially the type assymetry struct thread_group_cputime looks
> ugly. (and assymetries like that tend to be a constant source of
> breakage like the one below.)
I'm not overly fond of this one, either; I did it at Roland's suggestion
(it's all _his_ fault, yeah, _that's_ the ticket! :-); his opinion IIRC
was that the UP case will perform better without the extra pointer
dereferences. I agree that it's a potential source of pain such as the
one you point out.
--
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@...gle.com>
Google, Inc.
--
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