Re: [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16

Anton Blanchard wrote:

One way to solve this is to always take runqueues in cpu id order. To do
this we add a cpu variable to the runqueue and check it in the
double runqueue locking functions.

Thoughts?

You're right. I can't think of a better fix, although we've been trying
to avoid adding cpu to the runqueue structure.

I was going to suggest moving more work into wake_sleeping_dependent
instead, but cores with 4 and more threads now make that less desirable
I suppose.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -

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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16
    • From: Anton Blanchard <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16
    • From: Anton Blanchard <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: vger ate my patch!
• Next by Date: Re: PATCH][1/8] 2.6.15 mlock: make_pages_wired/unwired
• Previous by thread: [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]