[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071112170521.GA11113@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:05:21 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tony@...eyournoodle.com, paulus@...ba.org, dino@...ibm.com,
tytso@...ibm.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com, niv@...ibm.com,
antonb@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] improved hacks to allow -rt to run kernbench on POWER
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:48:45AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 09:45 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > Well, I suppose the patch could go in, maybe with some ifdef's
> > around
> > > the bits in _switch_to, there's little point in doing that on non-rt
> > > kernels.
> >
> > As Nick Piggin already stated, and I'll even state it for the RT
> > kernel,
> > we do not allow preemption in switch_to. So it is safe to remove those
> > "preempt_disable" bits from the patch
>
> Sure, I know that, I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about the
> added code that flush pending batches & save the batch state, since on
> non-rt kernel, this is not useful (the batch is only ever active within
> a spinlocked section, which cannot be preempted on non-rt).
Ah, I need a bit of conditional compilation. Will fix.
Thanx, Paul
-
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