![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 2002-01-10 at 00:10, kevin@koconnor.net wrote: > I was unable to figure out what the logic of the '(smp_processor_id() < > p->cpu)' test is.. (Why should the CPU number of the process being awoken > matter?) My best guess is that this is to enforce a locking invariant - > but if so, isn't this test backwards? If p->cpu > current->cpu then > p->cpu's runqueue is locked first followed by this_rq - locking greatest to > least, where the rest of the code does least to greatest.. OK, I replied I was unsure of the validity, but looking this over, I now suspect it is wrong. The test should be (smp_processor_id() > p->cpu). Thus it would be safe to lock this_rq since it is of a lower cpu id than p's rq. Robert Love - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||