On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:30:55AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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 is correct -- applying the above patch caused the scheduler to
correctly balance the rcutorture tasks, so that my patch to rcutorture
is no longer needed. Which is a very good thing! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
-
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]
