From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261807AbULGNL3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2004 08:11:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261805AbULGNL2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2004 08:11:28 -0500 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:7618 "EHLO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261808AbULGNKP (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2004 08:10:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 14:10:06 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Michael Buesch Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ck@vds.kolivas.org, kernel@kolivas.org Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] protect call to set_tsk_need_resched() by the rq-lock Message-ID: <20041207131006.GB3710@elte.hu> References: <200412062339.52695.mbuesch@freenet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200412062339.52695.mbuesch@freenet.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: MailScanner 4.31.6-itk1 (ELTE 1.2) SpamAssassin 2.63 ClamAV 0.73 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Michael Buesch wrote: > The two attached patches (one against vanilla kernel and one against > ck patchset) moves the rq-lock a few lines up in scheduler_tick() to > also protect set_tsk_need_resched(). > > Is that neccessary? scheduler_tick() is a special case, 'current' is pinned and cannot go away, nor can it get off the runqueue. So the patch is not needed. Ingo