[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFyyBpDR_oYu9EizwPf63q3Q=44Yw_jXd0Ozk0Ei1TtZJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:31:12 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] kernel freezes with latest tree
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> Ah, right! Silly me. One possibility is to rotate that list, except that
> won't work for the cgroup case where we have another iteration.
I just wonder whether you *really* need that loop at all?
If something went wrong with the attempted task move - you raced with
another cpu, or whatever - is there any real reason to even bother to
try again?
It's just a heuristic, after all, and we'll come back to balancing later.
The minimal patch looks good, but I did want to ask whether people
have considered just removing the looping entirely?
Linus
--
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