[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFTL4hxAW5fG4SFQMaEueFQgbc3yDgUWQ_dzKEyYuecsdGMf+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:54:53 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <clark.williams@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...nel.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...era.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Geoff Levand <geoff@...radead.org>,
Gilad Ben Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
Hakan Akkan <hakanakkan@...il.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <thebigcorporation@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/32] nohz/cpuset: Restart the tick if printk needs it
2012/10/30 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>:
> Probably need to at least disable preemption. I don't see any
> requirement that wake_up_klogd() needs to be called with preemption
> disabled.
>
> The this_cpu_or() doesn't care which CPU it triggers, but the enabling
> of nohz does.
This patch is deemed to be replaced with the printk in nohz patchset
I'm working on. But it indeed to disable preemption as well and its
irq work should be made per cpu.
--
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