Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

[Linus Torvalds]

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I could of course propose this... but I really won't since I'm half
> retching by now.. ;-)

Wow. Is this "ugly and fragile code week" and I just didn't get the memo?

I do wonder if we might not fix the problem by just taking the
*existing* lock in the right order?

IOW, how nasty would be it be to make "scheduler_tick()" just get the
cputimer->lock outside or rq->lock?

Sure, we'd hold that lock *much* longer than we need, but how much do
we care? Is that a lock that gets contention? It migth be the simple
solution for now - I *would* like to get 3.1 out..

                        Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/