Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 14:10:24 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, oleg@redhat.com, avorontsov@ru.mvista.com,
       mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] sched: Remove SYSTEM_RUNNING checks from
 cond_resched*()
Message-Id: <20090708141024.f8b581c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0907080907210.3210@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20090707235812.GA12824@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
	<20090708005000.GA12380@redhat.com>
	<1247034263.9777.24.camel@twins>
	<alpine.LFD.2.01.0907080907210.3210@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1178
Lines: 22

> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> That said, I do agree that maybe SYSTEM_RUNNING isn't the right check. 
> Testing that the scheduler is initialized may be the more correct one. I 
> think the SYSTEM_RUNNING one just comes from that being used for other 
> debug issues.

Agreed.  system_state is too general.

If we specifically want to know whether it is safe to call schedule() then
let's create a global boolean it_is_safe_to_call_schedule and test that,
rather than testing something which indirectly and unreliably implies "it
is safe to call schedule".  If that boolean already exists then no-brainer.

All that being said, I wonder if the netconsole code should be using
msleep(1) instead.  Spinning on cond_resched() is a bit rude.  But one
would have to verify that it is safe to call schedule() at this time, and
for the netconsole caller, this is dubious.
--
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/