[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1327587719.22710.95.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:21:59 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Luis Goncalves <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 1/2 v2] x86: Do not disable preemption in int3 on
32bit
On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 22:59 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Better. If the functions are only for signaling, how
> about using the "signal" in name? :)
>
> conditional_sti/cli_for_signal()
I don't think they are only for signals. The conditional_sti/cli is for
all callers of do_trap(). But those callers that run on an IST stack use
the preempt_conditional_sti/cli() code. Perhaps we should call it:
conditional_sti/cli_ist() ?
Actually, I think this is the best name. The "preempt_" one, didn't give
any annotation about why it was disabling preemption. It was done
because the stack is on the IST and we can not schedule out. Thus, if we
add the "_ist()" to it, not only does it annotate why this call is
special, but also allows x86_32, which does not have an IST, not to have
to disable preemption.
-- Steve
--
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