Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:05:14 +0000 (GMT) | From | John Levon <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |