[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0805251530520.25580@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 15:32:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, akpm@...l.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Clark Williams <clark.williams@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: enable preemption in delay
On Sun, 25 May 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 23:11:20 -0400 (EDT)
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > In git commit 35d5d08a085c56f153458c3f5d8ce24123617faf, Andrew Morton
> > placed preempt_disable around the entire delay due to TSC's not
> > working nicely on SMP. Unfortunately for those that care about
> > latencies this is devastating! Especially when we have callers to
> > mdelay(8).
>
> we used to have a WARN_ON if mdelay was called while preemptable..
> maybe we should put that back in?
>
That would be a good idea, but that wouldn't solve this issue. The issue
here is that the mdelay itself disables preemption. The caller had
preemption enabled.
The problem was caused by a quick fix by Andrew to handle out of sync
TSC's for a delay that used TSC's as a counter.
-- Steve
--
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