Re: Patch: linux-2.5.8-pre1/kernel/exit.c change caused BUG() at

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
>  Another approach would be:
> 
> preempt_schedule()
> {
> 	current->state2 = current->state;
> 	current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
> 	schedule();
> 	current->state = current->state2;
> }

Yes, but please no.

My current tree says

	asmlinkage void preempt_schedule(void)
	{
	        if (unlikely(preempt_get_count()))
	                return;
	        if (current->state != TASK_RUNNING)
	                return;
	        schedule();
	}

and if people start getting latency problems due to loops with state != 
TASK_RUNNING, then I suspect we might just make "set_current_state()" 
check that case explicitly and do a conditional reschedule (ie make it the 
same as if we released a lock). That would be a hell of a lot cleaner, in 
my opinion.

		Linus