lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Linux-2.2.2-pre2..


On Sun, 7 Feb 1999, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> You are correct. The scheduler code is special, and the scheduler will
> leave lock_depth set even though it has released the lock. I did that as a
> performance optimization, because I thought nobody would ever care, but
> it's obvious that yes, you do have to also set lock_depth to -1 inside the
> scheduler.

Actually, the proper approach is probably to move the
"run_task_queue(&tq_scheduler);" to above the code that releases the
kernel lock.

Bottom half stuff can be done with the kernel lock in this "inconsistent"
state (because bottom half code cannot aquire the kernel lock anyway, that
would lead to instant lockups), so the bottom half stuff can be left where
it is, but the tq_scheduler running should be done at the top of the
scheduler.

Linus


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:3.082 / U:0.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site