* OGAWA Hirofumi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > i found another bug and realized that the whole __resched_legal()
> > approach is fundamentally wrong! The patch below fixes this.
>
> Hmm.. but the path seems,
>
> -> cond_resched()
> -> if (__resched_legal()) /* preempt_count == 0 */
> -> __cond_resched() /* preempt_count == 0x10000000 */
> -> schedule()
> [...]
> -> cond_resched()
> -> if (__resched_legal()) /* preempt_count == 0x10000000 */
> -> __cond_resched() /* preempt_count == 0x20000000 */
> -> schedule() /* warning */
>
> Where is it prevented? Or warning is just wrong?
this should be handled by the second version of the patch i sent out
yesterday. When we have PREEMPT_ACTIVE set, no schedule() call is legal.
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]
