[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110526125007.GA27083@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 14:50:07 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...sony.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] "sched: Remove rq->lock from the first half of ttwu()"
locks up on ARM
* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:26:23PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Sort this by reverting to the old behaviour for this situation
> > > and perform a full remote wake-up.
> >
> > Btw., ARM should consider switching most of its subarchitectures
> > to !__ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW - enabling irqs during
> > context switches is silly and now expensive as well.
>
> Not going to happen. The reason we do it is because most of the
> CPUs have to (slowly) flush their caches during switch_mm(), and to
> have IRQs off over the cache flush means that we lose IRQs.
How much time does that take on contemporary ARM hardware, typically
(and worst-case)?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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