[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1LkZjf-0002vu-84@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:05:47 +0100
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: roland@...hat.com
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, peterz@...radead.org, efault@....de,
rjw@...k.pl, jdike@...toit.com, mingo@...e.hu, oleg@...hat.com,
user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] fix uml slowness caused by ptrace preemption bug on host
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I'm no scheduler expert and I don't know whether the exact placement in
> your change is the optimal one. But it's certainly fine from a ptrace
> perspective.
I'm no scheduler expert either.
Maybe a more generic solution in the scheduler (something like this
totally untested patch) would be better? What say you, scheduler
experts?
Thanks,
Miklos
Index: linux.git/kernel/sched.c
===================================================================
--- linux.git.orig/kernel/sched.c 2009-03-18 12:53:47.000000000 +0100
+++ linux.git/kernel/sched.c 2009-03-20 08:58:13.000000000 +0100
@@ -4629,7 +4629,8 @@ asmlinkage void __sched preempt_schedule
* If there is a non-zero preempt_count or interrupts are disabled,
* we do not want to preempt the current task. Just return..
*/
- if (likely(ti->preempt_count || irqs_disabled()))
+ if (likely(ti->preempt_count || irqs_disabled() ||
+ current->state != TASK_RUNNING))
return;
do {
--
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