[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200806190318.07684.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 03:18:07 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
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 Thursday 19 June 2008 02:16, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.
It doesn't really need one, but of course having one would help
non preempt kernels.
--
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