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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:17 EST