Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:42:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:42:19 -0500 Received: from artemis.rus.uni-stuttgart.de ([129.69.1.28]:20374 "EHLO artemis.rus.uni-stuttgart.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:42:06 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:42:02 +0100 (MET) From: Erich Focht To: Anton Blanchard cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] scheduler: migration tasks startup In-Reply-To: <20020307092411.GB853@krispykreme> 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 On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Anton Blanchard wrote: > > we encountered problems with the initial distribution of the > > migration_tasks across the CPUs. Machines with 16 and more CPUs > > sometimes won't boot. > > We found this on a 31 way and have sent a fix to Ingo already, we needed > to do a set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) before schedule_timeout() > or we just busy loop. OK, good to know that it wasn't a tipical IA64 problem. As far as I understand, your solution still relies on the specific behavior of the scheduler for distributing the tasks uniformly and on synchronizing among migration_tasks. I'd really prefer replacing this shaky method by the usage of migration_task on CPU#0. Thich would always work, no matter how many tasks are around. This saves some debugging work to those who play around with the scheduler or want to start some kernel threads earlier... Regards, Erich - 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/