[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0805280855250.25179@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 09:01:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, akpm@...l.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > + if (unlikely(cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
> > + if (loops <= TSC_MIGRATE_COUNT)
> > + break;
> > + cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > + rdtscl(bclock);
> > + loops -= TSC_MIGRATE_COUNT;
> > + } else {
> > + rdtscl(now);
> > + if ((now - bclock) >= loops)
> > + break;
> > + loops -= (now - bclock);
> > + bclock = now;
>
> What happens with different cpus running on different frequencies...?
> Cpufreq?
It's not even protected with the old code.
inline void __const_udelay(unsigned long xloops)
{
__delay(((xloops * HZ *
cpu_data(raw_smp_processor_id()).loops_per_jiffy) >> 32) + 1);
}
Here it calculates the loops_per_jiffy for the CPU and calls into __delay.
But it can easily be preempted here and the delay could run on another
CPU.
-- 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