Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:58:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:58:35 -0500 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:11528 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:58:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:05:47 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Ingo Molnar cc: Zwane Mwaikambo , Chris Wedgwood , Kernel Mailing List , "Martin J. Bligh" , William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: doublefault debugging (was Re: Linux v2.5.62 --- spontaneous reboots) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 960 Lines: 24 On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > This is a single non-serializing bit test, and if it means that the task > > counters are _right_, that's definitely the right thing to do. > > ok. Plus the wait_task_inactive() stuff was always a bit volatile. Now we > could in fact remove it from release_task(), right? Yes, except for the same concerns I had about your patch moving it. That part could be cleanly solvged by just moving a lot of the tear-down of the "struct task_struct" entirely into "__put_task_struct()" (which now can never be called with "current == tsk"), ie if we do the "free_user()" _there_, then I think we can remove the wait_task_inactive() entirely from the wait path. Linus - 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/