From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
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: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:20:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090709232021.GD1469@ucw.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090708141024.f8b581c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Hi!
> > 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.
or maybe we could embed that check into schedule(), just returning
when scheduler is not ready?
And I always wondered... system_state is not protected by any kind of
lock and is not atomic_t... Does it all work by mistake?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-10 12:06 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
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 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
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=20090709232021.GD1469@ucw.cz \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--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