On 14/03/2008, Hiroshi Shimamoto <h-shimamoto@ct.jp.nec.com> wrote:
quoted text
>
> [ ... ]
>
>  >> 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.


quoted text
>
> Hiroshi Shimamoto
>

-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Adamushko
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/