On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 10:49:42AM -0700, Robert Love wrote:
> > When I came up with the idea[1] I envisioned some linked-lists frobbing,
> > but in more recent times, we can now check the preempt_count for a
> > quick-n-dirty implementation (without the additional info of which locks
> > we hold, lock-taker, etc).
>
> Neat idea. I have seen some other good similar ideas: check
> preempt_count on schedule(), check preempt_count in usleep/msleep
> (Arjan's idea), and check preempt_count in wakeup/context switch/etc.
> code...
Sounds sensible. I'd like to see more self-checking bits added for
preemption. It may be the only way we ever pin down some of the
outstanding "don't make any sense" bugs.
Dave
-- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:23 EST