![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 15:28, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 03:23:01PM +1000, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > > Maybe I'm just an ignoramus, but I was thinking (without being a > > scheduler expert at all) that if the idle thread was already running, > > trying to set it up to run next might possibly have zero effect. I've > > sched_idle_next actually adds the idle task to its runqueue (normally > it is not present in a runqueue while running) and as well changes its > priority/policy. So it does have *some* effect! Ok. > > added a bit of debugging code to try and see in better detail what's > > happening. > > Could you elaborate (with some stack traces maybe) on the deadlock you are > seeing during resume? Maybe that can throw some light. I'll try. I'm having trouble reproducing it now (yes, having reversed my patch!). Regards, Nigel -- - 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: 2005-09-19 05:38 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||