On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 23:47 +0100, Dmitry Adamushko wrote: > On 14/03/2008, Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [ ... ] > > > > >> But maybe there is something esle that would be exposed by the > > >> 'rq->curr = rq->idle' manipulation... I can't provide examples right > > >> now though (I need to think on it). > > > > > > I share your concerns, I don't really like it either. Just spewing out > > > ideas here - bad ideas it seems :-/ > > > > > > Ingo also suggested moving the balance calls right before > > > deactivate_task(), but that gives a whole other set of head-aches. > > > > > > > > > Well, what will we do about this issue? > > I see you're thinking to fix inconsistency in scheduler, right? > > I agree about it. > > > > However, I don't think it's good to remain this issue long time in > > the -stable kernel. > > > > Could you please let me know what I can do? > > IMHO, the safest solution for the time being (and esp. for -stable) > would be to proceed with Hiroshi's patch. It looks safe and it does > fix a real problem. Agreed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
