[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274250079.5605.9967.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 08:21:19 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: schedule() && prev/current (Was: [PATCH 3/3] Make
get_current() __attribute__((const)))
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 23:22 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> And, looking at this patch I think that schedule() can be simplified
> a little bit.
>
> "sched: Reassign prev and switch_count when reacquire_kernel_lock() fail"
> commit 6d558c3ac9b6508d26fd5cadccce51fc9d726b1c says:
>
> Assume A->B schedule is processing,
> ...
> Then on B's context,
> ...
> prev and switch_count are related to A
>
> How so? switch_count - yes, we should change it. But prev must be
> equal to B, and it must be equal to current. When we return from
> switch_to() registers/stack should be restored correctly, so we
> can do
What if schedule() got called at a different stack depth than we are
now?
I don't think we can assume anything about the stack context we just
switched to.
--
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