On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 19:24 +0800, shenghui wrote: > I wonder is there any chance set_next_entity() can get NULL for > parameter se if so? Well, if your machine crashes that way, maybe, but I haven't seen that happen in a long while. > And will you please give me some instructions on where rq->lock > is required? Pretty much everywhere, if you look at sched.c the only sched_class method not called with rq->lock held is ::task_fork(). The interesting bits are that schedule()->pre_schedule()/idle_balance() can drop rq->lock as well as ->select_task_rq(). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
