Re: prev->has_cpu

Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:29:31 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> The point is that we _always_ set prev->use_cpu to 0. So if we are not
> going to switch_to() we' ll continue with current->use_cpu set to 0 and
> we' ll have a still sleeping process with use_cpu set to 1.

Umm??

We always set prev->has_cpu to zero, and we always set next->has_cpu to
one. That always works - even if next == prev, in which case it doesn't
actually do anything. I don't see the problem: schedule() is always
guaranteed to be entered with "current->has_cpu == 1" (because otherwise
it couldn't have scheduled in the first place) and schedule() will always
exit with "current->has_cpu" still set to one (except "current" can be
different).

I guess I still don't see what your worry is.

Linus

-
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/