From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, mingo@elte.hu,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:09:51 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4421307F.8020300@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060322104143.GC30422@krispykreme>
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
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org,
mingo@elte.hu, akpm@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:09:51 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4421307F.8020300@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060322104143.GC30422@krispykreme>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-22 13:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-22 10:41 [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16 Anton Blanchard
2006-03-22 10:41 ` Anton Blanchard
2006-03-22 11:09 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2006-03-22 11:09 ` Nick Piggin
2006-03-22 12:17 ` Anton Blanchard
2006-03-22 12:17 ` Anton Blanchard
2006-03-22 22:52 ` Peter Williams
2006-03-22 22:52 ` Peter Williams
2006-03-22 13:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-03-22 13:16 ` Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4421307F.8020300@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.