Jamie Lokier wrote:
> I guess that means that the current->need_resched problem, which hasn't
> shown up in tests, does not need to be fixed. (But it would probably
> clean up the scheduler to do so anyway).
This problem has shown up in tests. I brought it up in early December 1999.
Ingo Molnar correctly fixed the problem _and_ I think the fix is already
in 2.3.x. Anyone interested in this can look in the l-k archives for
the lowlatency thread, Dec 2, 1999.
I say again, the need_resched is _not_ lost. The whole issue is cleanly
resolved by referencing the proper "current" structure when need_resched
is set.
Please read my previous posts on this thread.
Wm
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:36 EST