Re: [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16

[Nick Piggin]

Anton Blanchard wrote:

> One way to solve this is to always take runqueues in cpu id order. To do
> this we add a cpu variable to the runqueue and check it in the
> double runqueue locking functions.
>
> Thoughts?

You're right. I can't think of a better fix, although we've been trying
to avoid adding cpu to the runqueue structure.

I was going to suggest moving more work into wake_sleeping_dependent
instead, but cores with 4 and more threads now make that less desirable
I suppose.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/