Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:26:34 +0200 | From | Samuel Thibault <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fix initialization of runqueues |
| |
Steven Rostedt, le Thu 03 Aug 2006 11:07:37 -0400, a écrit : > On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 18:57 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Ingo Molnar, le Wed 02 Aug 2006 17:24:19 +0200, a écrit : > > > > > > * Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > There's an odd thing about the nr_active field in arrays of > > > > runqueue_t: it is actually never initialized to 0!... This doesn't > > > > yet trigger a bug probably because the way runqueues are allocated > > > > make it so that it is already initialized to 0, but that's not a safe > > > > way. Here is a patch: > > > > > > we do rely on zero initialization of bss (and percpu) data in a number > > > of places. > > > > The rest of runqueue initialization doesn't rely on that, and as > > a result people might think that it is safe to allocate runqueues > > dynamically. > > I don't buy the "safe to allocate runqueues dynamically" bit since they > are local to sched.c and if you do do that (I did for a customer once) > you better know what you're doing.
Yes, but as you agreed, initializing some members to 0 and not others doesn't help to know what you're doing :)
Samuel - 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/
| |