On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 09:46:18AM -0500, William Montgomery wrote:
>
> Jamie Lokier wrote:
>
> > I guess that means that the current->need_resched problem, which hasn't
> > shown up in tests, does not need to be fixed. (But it would probably
> > clean up the scheduler to do so anyway).
>
> This problem has shown up in tests. I brought it up in early December 1999.
> Ingo Molnar correctly fixed the problem _and_ I think the fix is already
> in 2.3.x. Anyone interested in this can look in the l-k archives for
> the lowlatency thread, Dec 2, 1999.
>
> I say again, the need_resched is _not_ lost. The whole issue is cleanly
> resolved by referencing the proper "current" structure when need_resched
> is set.
>
> Please read my previous posts on this thread.
My question is why the last part of the scheduler needs to run with interrupts
enabled.
-- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken FSMLabs: www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com FSMLabs is a servicemark and a service of VJY Associates L.L.C, New Mexico.- 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 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:36 EST