Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:57:45 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] BUG(): sched.c: Line 944 |
| |
On 17 Sep 2002, Robert Love wrote:
[...] > Now, remind me why this is all worth it...
having preemption support that 1) is correct 2) works?
We *must* use the schedule() check to debug preemption bugs, or we wont have usable preemption in 2.6, i dont really understand why your are not happy that we have such a great tool. In fact we should also add other debugging bits, like 'check for !0 preemption count in smp_processor_id()' , and the underflow checks that caught the IDE bug. These are all bits that help the elimination of preemption bugs which are also often SMP bugs, on plain UP boxes.
Ingo
- 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/
|  |