lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4
From
Date
On Tue, 2014-12-02 at 08:33 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Looking again at that patch (the commit message still doesn't strike
> me as wonderfully explanatory :^) makes me worry, though.
>
> Is that
>
> if (rq->skip_clock_update-- > 0)
> return;
>
> really right? If skip_clock_update was zero (normal), it now gets set
> to -1, which has its own specific meaning (see "force clock update"
> comment in kernel/sched/rt.c). Is that intentional? That seems insane.

Yeah, it was intentional. Least lines.

> Or should it be
>
> if (rq->skip_clock_update > 0) {
> rq->skip_clock_update = 0;
> return;
> }
>
> or what? Maybe there was a reason the patch never got applied even to -tip.

Peterz was looking at corner case proofing the thing. Saving those
cycles has been entirely too annoying.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/8/295

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-12-02 19:21    [W:0.457 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site