Re: [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16

[Peter Williams]

Nick Piggin wrote:
> 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.

But now that it's there it will enable further optimizations in parts of
sched.c, wouldn't it?  E.g. there's a number of functions that get
passed both the run queue and the CPI id as arguments and these could be
simplified.

Peter
--
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
 -- Ambrose Bierce

-
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/