[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100310022800.GG6203@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 18:28:00 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
josh@...htriplett.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] rcu: don't ignore preempt_disable() in the idle loop
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:13:56AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>
> >> This is another try, it uses the fact that idle loops
> >> are executing with preept_count()=1.
> >> But I didn't look deep into all idle loops.
> >
> > Hello, Lai!
> >
> > One question below...
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
>
> [...]
>
> >> +
> >> + if ((preempt_count() & PREEMPT_MASK) > IDLE_CORE_LOOP_PREEMPT_COUNT)
> >> + return 0;
> >
> > How does this work in CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernels? I don't see how it
> > does, regardless of what preempt_count() returns in this case.
>
> You are right, It cannot work in CONFIG_PREEMPT=n kernels.
> ignore this stupid patch.
Don't be too hard on yourself -- it is an interesting idea, just doesn't
seem to quite work out. Perhaps it will lead you to another idea that
does work.
Thanx, Paul
--
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