[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1259244563.31676.53.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:09:23 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: fix set_task_cpu() and provide an unlocked
runqueue variant
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 11:16 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > min_vruntime should only ever be poked at when holding the respective
> > rq->lock, even with a barrier a 64bit read on a 32bit machine can go all
> > funny.
>
> Yeah, but we're looking at an unlocked runqueue. But never mind...
The patch is also poking at rq->clock without rq->lock held... not very
nice.
Gah, I hate that we're doing migration things without holding both rq's,
this is making live so very interesting ;-)
--
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