lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: prev->has_cpu
    On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote:

    >one. That always works - even if next == prev, in which case it doesn't

    If next == prev we don' t switch_to() another task. But the other task
    (not going to be scheduled yet) will just have next->has_cpu == 1 even if
    will not run soon. I think _only_ running (currents) tasks should have
    ->has_cpu == 1.

    >actually do anything. I don't see the problem: schedule() is always
    >guaranteed to be entered with "current->has_cpu == 1" (because otherwise
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Where? I can' t find such piece of code. I think instead that if `prev ==
    next', we' ll exit from the scheule() without changing the current process
    and with current->has_cpu == 0.

    >it couldn't have scheduled in the first place) and schedule() will always
    >exit with "current->has_cpu" still set to one (except "current" can be
    >different).

    I think that right now (without my patch) we exit from schedule() with
    current->has_cpu == 1 _only_ if prev != next...

    >I guess I still don't see what your worry is.

    Eventually I am not understanding very well the scheduler :-). In such
    case excuse me.

    Andrea Arcangeli



    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.019 / U:60.912 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site