[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9810cff90802221643g7d993af4k33f29fb4a4663407@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:43:40 -0800
From: "Bill Huey (hui)" <bill.huey@...il.com>
To: gregory.haskins@...il.com
Cc: "Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>,
"Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kevin@...man.org, cminyard@...sta.com, dsingleton@...sta.com,
dwalker@...sta.com, npiggin@...e.de, dsaxena@...xity.net,
ak@...e.de, gregkh@...e.de, sdietrich@...ell.com,
pmorreale@...ell.com, mkohari@...ell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH [RT] 11/14] optimize the !printk fastpath through the lock acquisition
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Gregory Haskins
<gregory.haskins.ml@...il.com> wrote:
> Agreed, but it's still correct afaict. I added an extra might_sleep()
> to a path that really might sleep. I should have mentioned that in the
> header.
>
> In any case, its moot. Andi indicated this patch is probably a no-op so
> I was considering dropping it on the v2 pass.
The might_sleep is annotation and well as a conditional preemption
point for the regular kernel. You might want to do a schedule check
there, but it's the wrong function if memory serves me correctly. It's
reserved for things that actually are design to sleep. The rt_spin*()
function are really a method of preserving BKL semantics across real
schedule() calls. You'd have to use something else instead for that
purpose like cond_reschedule() instead.
bill
--
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