[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060927091513.GC20395@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:15:13 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move put_task_struct() reaping into a thread [Re: 2.6.18-rt1]
* Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 10:57:12AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Because the conversion of memory allocation routines like kmalloc and
> > > kfree aren't safely callable within a preempt_disable critical section
> > > since they were incompletely converted in the -rt. [...]
> >
> > they were not 'incompletely converted' - they are /intentionally/ fully
> > preemptible.
>
> What I meant by "incompletely converted" is that the allocators could
> be made more safe in non-preemptible scenarios under -rt. [...]
no, the -rt kernel intentionally does not do that and wont do that.
There's lots of complex stuff going on within allocators, even in the
GFP_ATOMIC path. We might be able to plug in more deterministic
allocators (like SLOB), but even they must be fully preemptible. In the
-rt kernel there's basically no compromise on the "do as little as
possible in non-preemptible regions" stance.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists