* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 18:43 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Iau, 2005-05-19 at 18:25, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > I've seen a RT yield warning on this yield while running the FUSYN
> > > tests .. I can't imagine why it's there either.
> >
> > Would it not make more sense to kick a task out of hard real time at the
> > point it begins dumping core. The core dumping sequence was never
> > something that thread intended to execute at real time priority
> >
>
> That's what I recommended in an earlier email. I figured I'd wait to
> see Ingo's response before sending him any patches. The drop from RT
> should probably be after the zap_threads, that way it can kill those
> using the same mm right away. Which also goes to say, we should get
> rid of that yield.
i think the yield() is bogus - all of coredumping is (or ought to be)
fully event-driven. I agree that coredumping itself does not need to run
with RT priorities - but this does not change the fact that no kernel
code should break if executing with RT priority.
In my tree i removed one yield() from exec.c and changed the other one
to msleep(1).
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
