Re: [patch] new-task-fix.patch, 2.6.8.1-mm1

[Nick Piggin]

Ingo Molnar wrote:

> * Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Looking through 2.6.8.1-mm1, I see this code which doesn't make sense:
> >    
>
>  
>
> > So, first off, the statements under "if (unlikely(cpu != this_cpu))"
> > can be folded into the previous block, since that's under the same
> > test.  Secondly, why is sleep_avg being set twice to the same thing,
> > and why are we happy to adjust it the first time without holding the
> > rq lock for current, but the second time we make sure we are holding
> > the rq lock? [...]
> >    
>
> agreed, this is a bug - the code has rotten somewhat. The attached patch
> fixes it. I've also cleaned up the locking and added this_rq, to make
> clear when and how we are hopping from one runqueue to another. (this
> cleanup would have made the original bug more obvious as well.)
>
> This comes after sched-nonlinear-timeslicespatch.patch in 2.6.8.1-mm1. 
> Tested on x86.
>
>  

Looks OK to me. Thanks Ingo, Rusty.

-
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/