[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1285622169.2512.135.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 23:16:09 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] si time accounting accounts bh_disable'd time to si
Le lundi 27 septembre 2010 à 14:11 -0700, Venkatesh Pallipadi a écrit :
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > But softirq handlers sometime call functions that might disable bh
> > again. It would be good to not switch softirq time to system time ;)
>
> Yes. Good point :-). I should rather have
> +#define in_serving_softirq() (softirq_count() & SOFTIRQ_OFFSET)
>
> >
> > Shouldnt we reserve a bit (high order bit out of 8) instead ?
> >
> > * PREEMPT_MASK: 0x000000ff
> > * SOFTIRQ_MASK: 0x0000ff00
> > * SERVING_SOFTIRQ: 0x00008000
> > * HARDIRQ_MASK: 0x03ff0000
> > * NMI_MASK: 0x04000000
>
> Things will be very much similar using higher order bit or lower order
> bit. Somehow I felt using lower order bit was cleaner...
>
No problem, I now undertand what you wanted to achieve ;)
--
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