Re: [PATCH] Assorted counter/sched stuff
Neil Conway (nconway.list@UKAEA.ORG.UK)
Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:31:47 +0000
MOLNAR Ingo wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Neil Conway wrote:
>
> > When I first saw the problem in tty_ioctl.c, Linus said that because the
> > driver was setting TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE it will not get the CPU back
> > anyway (until the wait queue responds in that particular case). In the
> > cases I have just changed, the driver won't get the CPU back until the
> > timeout expires in schedule_timeout(). Once the timeout expires, why on
> > earth would we want the driver to be low-priority? I'm not saying
> > that's impossible, just that I don't see a reason - do feel encouraged
> > to put me straight ;-)
>
> ah, ok, i didnt know that this is a _bug_ :) I thought you suspect some
> changed behavior related to recentish scheduler changes, but it isnt. i
> think these then are all longstanding bugs, i guess for 2.0 too.
Funnily enough it looks like the only instance in 2.0 was the one in
tty_ioctl.c :-) (OK, the tree I looked in was 2.0.35 but...).
Alan - you may want to chop out the "current->counter =0" line in that
file for the next 2.0 release - can't hurt (he said confidently) and
might help people who run SMP on 2.0...
Neil
-
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/