[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081204122349.GB5207@in.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:53:49 +0530
From: "K.Prasad" <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
jason.wessel@...driver.com, avi@...ranet.com,
richardj_moore@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch 6/9] Use virtual debug registers in process/thread
handling code
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 05:05:59PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > Hmm. The 64-bit version of __switch_to does the current change much
> > > earlier, before __switch_to_xtra and math_state_restore. I wonder if the
> > > 32-bit version could change to match. I can't see what in __switch_to_xtra
> > > would care either way, though I may be overlooking something. Ingo?
> >
> > Would it be better to move __switch_to_xtra down below the change to
> > current, rather than moving the change to current up above
> > __switch_to_xtra?
>
> I can't see that anything else in __switch_to_xtra cares either way.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Roland
>
That the grouse against the placement of
switch_to_thread_hw_breakpoint() is about additional code in the
hot-path, can we deal with this separately through a different patch?
I now have the patchset which provides only data breakpoint facility on
x86 (and x86_64) and has addressed your comments, ported against
2.6.28-rc7 which will be sent shortly. I'm thinking if the suggested
changes to the context-switching code can be handled later.
Thanks,
K.Prasad
--
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