lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] softirq performance fixes, cleanups, 2.4.10.
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 06:44:03PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> +void __unwakeup_process(struct task_struct * p, long state)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&runqueue_lock, flags);
> + if (!p->has_cpu && (p != current) && task_on_runqueue(p)) {
> + del_from_runqueue(p);
> + p->state = state;
> + }
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&runqueue_lock, flags);
> +}

Is it really possible for a task to be 'current' without having
'has_cpu' set? If so, then don't you need to compare p to
'current' on all CPUs since 'current' is CPU specific?

--
Mike Kravetz kravetz@us.ibm.com
IBM Linux Technology Center (we're not at Sequent anymore)
-
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 13:03    [W:0.130 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site