From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, oleg@redhat.com,
avorontsov@ru.mvista.com, mingo@elte.hu,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] sched: Remove SYSTEM_RUNNING checks from cond_resched*()
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:10:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090708141024.f8b581c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0907080907210.3210@localhost.localdomain>
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> That said, I do agree that maybe SYSTEM_RUNNING isn't the right check.
> Testing that the scheduler is initialized may be the more correct one. I
> think the SYSTEM_RUNNING one just comes from that being used for other
> debug issues.
Agreed. system_state is too general.
If we specifically want to know whether it is safe to call schedule() then
let's create a global boolean it_is_safe_to_call_schedule and test that,
rather than testing something which indirectly and unreliably implies "it
is safe to call schedule". If that boolean already exists then no-brainer.
All that being said, I wonder if the netconsole code should be using
msleep(1) instead. Spinning on cond_resched() is a bit rude. But one
would have to verify that it is safe to call schedule() at this time, and
for the netconsole caller, this is dubious.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-08 21:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-07 23:58 [PATCH/RFC] sched: Remove SYSTEM_RUNNING checks from cond_resched*() Anton Vorontsov
2009-07-08 0:50 ` Oleg Nesterov
2009-07-08 6:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-08 12:03 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-07-08 12:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-08 12:55 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-07-08 12:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-08 20:45 ` [PATCH] sched: Make cond_resched*() available earlier Anton Vorontsov
2009-07-08 16:12 ` [PATCH/RFC] sched: Remove SYSTEM_RUNNING checks from cond_resched*() Linus Torvalds
2009-07-08 21:10 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2009-07-08 21:33 ` Anton Vorontsov
2009-07-08 21:47 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-08 22:20 ` [PATCH] netpoll: Fix carrier detection for drivers that are using phylib Anton Vorontsov
2009-07-09 0:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-07-09 3:08 ` David Miller
2009-07-09 7:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-09 12:56 ` Matt Mackall
2009-07-09 13:26 ` Matt Mackall
2009-07-09 13:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-09 14:18 ` Matt Mackall
2009-07-09 14:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-09 14:43 ` Matt Mackall
2009-07-09 14:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-09 15:06 ` Matt Mackall
2009-07-09 17:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-07-09 12:52 ` Matt Mackall
2009-07-09 23:20 ` [PATCH/RFC] sched: Remove SYSTEM_RUNNING checks from cond_resched*() Pavel Machek
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=20090708141024.f8b581c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=avorontsov@ru.mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox