Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:16:46 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] possible scheduler deadlock in 2.6.16 |
| |
* Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org> wrote:
> One way to solve this is to always take runqueues in cpu id order. To > do this we add a cpu variable to the runqueue and check it in the > double runqueue locking functions. > > Thoughts?
it's fine with me - the overhead to double_rq_lock() is minimal, and it's not critical code either.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
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/
| |