[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0806181215120.29622@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:16:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andi Kleen <andi-suse@...stfloor.org>,
Clark Williams <clark.williams@...il.com>,
Marin Mitov <mitov@...p.bas.bg>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, akpm@...l.org,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][resubmit] x86: enable preemption in delay
On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> There are _some_ cases where it can be used, but nobody has been
> able to come up with compelling uses really. I don't think this
> case is helped very much either because the logic in there using
> preempt-disable is fine, isn't it?
>
> Except that it should also have a cond_resched in it. Seems like
> an ideal place to put cond_resched because it is not a fastpath.
>
Does it really need a cond_resched? preempt_enable when it goes to zero
will already check to see if it should schedule.
-- 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