[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1248285403.4711.0.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:56:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/core] sched: Pull up the might_sleep() check into
cond_resched()
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 19:17 +0200, Frédéric Weisbecker wrote:
> Ah, I think I've got it. In case of !CONFIG_PREEMPT, the spinlocks of
> course don't play
> with preemption, making no change reflected in the preempt_count().
> The assumption of preempt_count() = 1
> is then false.
D'0h indeed. And I didn't hit that because the last time I build a !
CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel is like many years ago ;-)
--
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