[Linux-ia64] Re: O(1) scheduler "complex" macros

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo_at_elte.hu>
Date: 2002-07-11 19:31:28
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Erich Focht wrote:

> > 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.

there is one more detail - wait_task_inactive() needs to consider the
->switch_lock as well - otherwise exit() might end up freeing the
pagetables earlier than the context-switch has truly finished. The
udelay(100) test should trigger this race.

i've fixed this and uploaded the -A8 patch:


does this fix the ia64 crashes? you need to define an ia64-specific
task_running(rq, p) macro, which should be something like:

 #define task_running(rq, p) \
	((rq)->curr == (p)) && !spin_is_locked(&(p)->switch_lock)

a number of other places needed to be updated to use the task_running()  
macro. For load_balance() and set_cpus_allowed() it's technically not
necessery, but i've added it to make things cleaner and safer for the time

the default locking is still as lightweight as it used to be.

> 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.

the udelay() test should be fine otherwise. (as long as ia64 udelay doesnt
do anything weird.)

Received on Wed Jul 10 02:32:59 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:09 EST