At 10:59 PM 6/3/2003 +0200, J.A. Magallon wrote:

>On 05.22, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > At 10:56 AM 5/21/2003 -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Wed, 21 May 2003 11:26:31 +0200, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
> > > said:
> > >
> > >   Mike> The page mentions persistent starvation.  My own explorations
> > >   Mike> of this issue indicate that the primary source is always
> > >   Mike> selecting the highest priority queue.
> > >
> > >My working assumption is that the problem is a bug with the dynamic
> > >prioritization.  The task receiving the signals calls sleep() after
> > >handling a signal and hence it's dynamic priority should end up higher
> > >than the priority of the task sending signals (since the sender never
> > >relinquishes the CPU voluntarily).
> > >
> > >However, I haven't actually had time to look at the relevant code, so
> > >I may be missing something.  If you understand the issue better,
> > >please explain to me why this isn't a dynamic priority issue.
> >
> > You're right, it looks like a corner case.  It works fine here with the
> > attached diff.
> >
>
>Have you tried to build with gcc-3.3 ? I applied it on top of 2.4.x-aa,
>and I just get an ICE:

No, I use 2.95.3.

>End of search list.
>sched.c: In function `do_schedule':
>sched.c:1003: internal compiler error: in merge_assigned_reloads, at 
>reload1.c:6134
>Please submit a full bug report,
>with preprocessed source if appropriate.
>See <URL:https://qa.mandrakesoft.com/> for instructions.
>
>sched.c::1003 is the closing brace for do_schedule().
>
>Any idea ?

Nope... gcc can have the blame if it wants it :)

         -Mike 

-
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/