lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch] Race between init_idle and reschedule_idle
    Martin J. Bligh writes:
    > Thanks to Alan Cox & Andrew Morton for showing me how to serialise
    > the cpus to make the panic legible. The following patch holds back
    > the boot cpu at the end of smp_init until all the secondarys have
    > done init_idle:

    One thing that bothers me about your patch is how it limits the number
    of CPU's to the number of bits in an unsigned long. While I realise
    there are other places that do the same (last time I looked), we
    shouldn't be perpeturating these kinds of limitations.

    I'd suggest you use an atomic_t instead. Increment for each CPU, and
    decrement when each CPU is ready. Just test for 0 in your wait loop.
    One less piece of code we have to overhaul later.

    Regards,

    Richard....
    Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
    Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
    -
    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:0.023 / U:1.980 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site