[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090320140409.GB20965@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:04:09 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: roland@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, efault@....de,
rjw@...k.pl, jdike@...toit.com, mingo@...e.hu,
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 03/20, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> I'm no scheduler expert either.
neither me ;)
> --- 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))
But this was specially designed to allow to preempt !TASK_RUNNING tasks,
note the "if (prev->state && !(preempt_count() & PREEMPT_ACTIVE))" in
schedule().
Perhaps "|| current->state == TASK_TRACED" makes more sense, TASK_TRACED
is special because we know we are going to schedule really soon. But I think
your previous patch is better, imho we should change preempt_schedule() to
fix the very specific problem with ptrace_notify().
Oleg.
--
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