Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756608AbZGHVdj (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:33:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755653AbZGHVdd (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:33:33 -0400 Received: from ru.mvista.com ([213.79.90.228]:47966 "EHLO buildserver.ru.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755165AbZGHVdc (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:33:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 01:33:31 +0400 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Andrew Morton Cc: Linus Torvalds , a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, oleg@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] sched: Remove SYSTEM_RUNNING checks from cond_resched*() Message-ID: <20090708213331.GA9346@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> Reply-To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com References: <20090707235812.GA12824@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20090708005000.GA12380@redhat.com> <1247034263.9777.24.camel@twins> <20090708141024.f8b581c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090708141024.f8b581c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1471 Lines: 33 On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 02:10:24PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds 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. What do you mean by "verify that it is safe"? If it works, can I assume that it's safe? ;-) It works, fwiw. Thanks, -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 -- 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/