Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:30:15 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       git-commits-head@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmemleak: Fix scheduling-while-atomic bug
Message-ID: <20090701093015.GA6862@elte.hu>
References: <200907010300.n6130rRf026194@hera.kernel.org> <20090701075332.GA17252@elte.hu> <1246439937.8492.18.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1246439937.8492.18.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 820
Lines: 21


* Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:

> > The minimal fix below removes scan_yield() and adds a 
> > cond_resched() to the outmost (safe) place of the scanning 
> > thread. This solves the regression.
> 
> With CONFIG_PREEMPT disabled it won't reschedule during the bss 
> scanning but I don't see this as a real issue (task stacks 
> scanning probably takes longer anyway).

Yeah. I suspect one more cond_resched() could be added - i just 
didnt see an obvious place for it, given that scan_block() is being 
called with asymetric held-locks contexts.

	Ingo
--
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/