On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>[..] "likely to be a bug in
>the lowlatency patch, but we simply do not know for sure, yet.". [..]
Correct. What I meant is that it's not a bug in the 2.2.14aa7.gz patch. It
may be as well a 2.2.14 official bug of course (but more likely to be
another race in the lowlatency patch).
BTW, I just found another lowlatency patch bug:
-
+ /*
+ * Tough one to time-limit ...
+ */
entry = entry->next;
- if (!CAN_UNUSE(INODE(tmp)))
+ if (!CAN_UNUSE(INODE(tmp))) {
+ if (current->need_resched) {
+ INODE(tmp)->i_count++;
+ spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
+ schedule();
+ spin_lock(&inode_lock);
+ INODE(tmp)->i_count--;
+ }
continue;
+ }
i_count-- won't release the inode correctly (think if the inode got
deleted under the schedule).
Drop the above changes and try again.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:30 EST