Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 05:03:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 05:02:59 -0400 Received: from ophelia.ess.nec.de ([193.141.139.8]:35510 "EHLO ophelia.ess.nec.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 05:02:58 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Erich Focht To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: O(1) scheduler "complex" macros Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 11:05:29 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.4] Cc: linux-kernel , linux-ia64 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: <200207101105.29317.efocht@ess.nec.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 924 Lines: 29 Hi Ingo, thanks for the quick response! > the best solution might be to just lock the 'next' task - this needs a new > per-task irq-safe spinlock, to avoid deadlocks. This way whenever a task > is in the middle of a context-switch it cannot be scheduled on another > CPU. We tested this and it looked good. But inserting a udelay(100) like: ... prepare_arch_switch(rq, next); udelay(100); prev = context_switch(prev, next); ... leads to a crash after 10 minutes. Again this looks like accessing an empty page. Does anything speak against such a test? It is there just to show up quickly problems which we might normally get only after hours of running. 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/