Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:31:47 +0000 | From | Neil Conway <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Assorted counter/sched stuff |
| |
MOLNAR Ingo wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Neil Conway wrote: > > > When I first saw the problem in tty_ioctl.c, Linus said that because the > > driver was setting TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE it will not get the CPU back > > anyway (until the wait queue responds in that particular case). In the > > cases I have just changed, the driver won't get the CPU back until the > > timeout expires in schedule_timeout(). Once the timeout expires, why on > > earth would we want the driver to be low-priority? I'm not saying > > that's impossible, just that I don't see a reason - do feel encouraged > > to put me straight ;-) > > ah, ok, i didnt know that this is a _bug_ :) I thought you suspect some > changed behavior related to recentish scheduler changes, but it isnt. i > think these then are all longstanding bugs, i guess for 2.0 too.
Funnily enough it looks like the only instance in 2.0 was the one in tty_ioctl.c :-) (OK, the tree I looked in was 2.0.35 but...).
Alan - you may want to chop out the "current->counter =0" line in that file for the next 2.0 release - can't hurt (he said confidently) and might help people who run SMP on 2.0...
Neil
- 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/
| |