Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:31:46 -0700 | Subject | Re: Linux 3.1-rc9 |
| |
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > > I could of course propose this... but I really won't since I'm half > retching by now.. ;-)
Wow. Is this "ugly and fragile code week" and I just didn't get the memo?
I do wonder if we might not fix the problem by just taking the *existing* lock in the right order?
IOW, how nasty would be it be to make "scheduler_tick()" just get the cputimer->lock outside or rq->lock?
Sure, we'd hold that lock *much* longer than we need, but how much do we care? Is that a lock that gets contention? It migth be the simple solution for now - I *would* like to get 3.1 out..
Linus
| |