* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:28:04 -0700
> "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > + while (!startwriters)
> > + barrier(); /* Force scheduler to spread over CPUs. */
>
> one wonders whether a cpu_relax() would be a bit nicer here. That
> implicitly does a barrier().
>
> This patch doesn't make much sense for non-SMP builds?
i think this patch should be unnecessary because we found the real SMP
balancing bug in the upstream scheduler causing this rcu problem, see:
commit 92c4ca5c3a5e180e9762438db235f41d192cb955
Author: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
Date: Sat Jun 23 17:16:33 2007 -0700
sched: fix next_interval determination in idle_balance()
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]
