![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 18:43 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Iau, 2005-05-19 at 18:25, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > I've seen a RT yield warning on this yield while running the FUSYN > > > tests .. I can't imagine why it's there either. > > > > Would it not make more sense to kick a task out of hard real time at the > > point it begins dumping core. The core dumping sequence was never > > something that thread intended to execute at real time priority > > > > That's what I recommended in an earlier email. I figured I'd wait to > see Ingo's response before sending him any patches. The drop from RT > should probably be after the zap_threads, that way it can kill those > using the same mm right away. Which also goes to say, we should get > rid of that yield. i think the yield() is bogus - all of coredumping is (or ought to be) fully event-driven. I agree that coredumping itself does not need to run with RT priorities - but this does not change the fact that no kernel code should break if executing with RT priority. In my tree i removed one yield() from exec.c and changed the other one to msleep(1). Ingo - 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: 2005-05-23 09:58 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||