On Mon, 28 Aug 2000, Dimitris Michailidis wrote:
>
> On 28-Aug-2000 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > the attached sched-2.4.0-test7-C1 patch fixes a 'missed wakeup'
> > SMP-scheduler bug.
>
> +running_again:
> + if (prev == idle_task(smp_processor_id()))
> + goto out_unlock;
>
> Why don't you move the test for the idle task to the beginning of the
> function so we don't need to take the run queue lock if prev is idle? There
> is nothing to be done for idle tasks, we don't even need to set ->has_cpu.
No, that's not the right solution.
I think the right solution is to completely split up "schedule()" into two
different functions (which just share 99% of the code), and basically have
the idle thread call the _other_ schedule. The one that never does the
test at all.
That way you know statically whether you are the idle thread or not. No
test at all.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:22 EST