[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49EAF9D6.1010600@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:15:50 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow preemption during lazy mmu updates
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 16:54 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>>> kernel/sched.c | 2 -
>>>
>> Needs the ack of ... oh, never mind - this one is fine i guess ;-)
>>
>
> Ah, about that. This new preemption hook has slightly different
> requirements than the current preempt-notifiers have (hence the new
> hook), I was wondering if KVM (afaik currently the only preempt-notifier
> consumer) could live with these requirements.
>
> That is, could these be merged?
>
What are the slight differences in requirements?
KVM wants to run in non-preemptible, interrupts-enabled context.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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