lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch-2.4.1-ac10] unsetting TASK_RUNNING
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Tigran Aivazian wrote:

> Hi Alan,
>
> The only case in schedule_timeout() which does not call schedule() does
> set tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING explicitly before returning. Therefore, any
> code which unconditionally calls schedule_timeout() (and, of course
> schedule()) does not need to set TASK_RUNNING afterwards.
>
> I have seen some people setting this TASK_RUNNING incorrectly, based on a
> mere observation that "official Linux kernel code does so" -- so the patch
> below is not just an optimization but serves for education (i.e. to stop
> people copying unnecessary code).

I had a similar set of patches a while ago. I had several more unnecessary settings.

At least Matthew Dharm as usb-storage maintainer wanted to keep his in. Of more
concern IMHO were the drivers busy waiting by failing to reset current->state
on each iteration - e.g. maestro2, maestro3.

The patches I sent (out dated, and some of it buggy) are at :

http://www.movement.uklinux.net/patches/kernel/schedule1.diff
http://www.movement.uklinux.net/patches/kernel/schedule2.diff
http://www.movement.uklinux.net/patches/kernel/schedule3.diff
http://www.movement.uklinux.net/patches/kernel/schedule4.diff

for your reference. The last is similar to your patch.

thanks
john

--
"Having Outlook security problems so frequently that they start to blur together is a dangerous thing."
- hackernews

-
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: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.132 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site