On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
> > Hans-Joachim Baader wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Since the message only appears in the Reiserfs, we know the culprit ;-)
> > >
> > It's probably a buglet in the main scheduler, and Reiserfs uncovered the
> > problem 8-)
> > IIRC one of the Reiserfs developers wrote that the newest patch should
> > fix that problem.
> >
>
> Exactly. I work around this in our 2.3 code, but haven't had the chance
> to port the fix back yet to the 2.2 code. Andi Kleen sent along this
> patch for sched.c, as far as I know, it has fixed the issue for everyone
> that has tried it.
>
> --- linux/kernel/sched.c-o Wed Feb 9 14:27:20 2000
> +++ linux/kernel/sched.c Wed Mar 29 12:53:41 2000
> @@ -803,6 +803,7 @@
> goto handle_bh_back;
>
> handle_tq_scheduler:
> + __sti();
> run_task_queue(&tq_scheduler);
> goto tq_scheduler_back;
>
>
But doesn't this just mask a more basic problem with somebody (in some
path) not releasing a lock?
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.3.41 on an i686 machine (800.63 BogoMips).
-
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 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:19 EST