Re: [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16

[Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>]

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@bigpond.net.au

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