[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1268730114.9552.34.camel@falcon>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:01:54 +0800
From: Wu Zhangjin <wuzhangjin@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Why we need to call cpu_idle() with preemption disabled
Hi, Thomas
Just traced the preemption latency of 2.6.33-rt7 on my Yeeloong netbook
with the preemptoff tracer of Ftrace and found it is very big in
cpu_idle(), more than 1000 us.
And found that we have called cpu_idle() in init/main.c with preemption
disabled? why we need to do it? can we simply call it with preemption
enabled?
diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
index 48393c0..437ac34 100644
--- a/init/main.c
+++ b/init/main.c
@@ -428,9 +428,8 @@ static noinline void __init_refok rest_init(void)
*/
init_idle_bootup_task(current);
preempt_enable_and_schedule();
- preempt_disable();
- /* Call into cpu_idle with preempt disabled */
+ /* There is no reason for calling cpu_idle with preemption
disabled */
cpu_idle();
}
After removing that preempt_disable() and the related operations around
the calling to __schedule() in the cpu_idle(), the result becomes around
200 us, which is acceptable for I have enabled several Ftrace tracers.
Best Regards,
Wu Zhangjin
--
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