[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51709FE1.20807@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:37:37 -0700
From: Michael Bohan <mbohan@...eaurora.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hrtimer: Consider preemption when migrating hrtimer
cpu_bases
On 4/18/2013 2:40 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Michael Bohan wrote:
>
>> When switching to a new cpu_base in switch_hrtimer_base(), we
>> briefly enable preemption by unlocking the cpu_base lock in two
>> places. During this interval it's possible for the running thread
>> to be swapped to a different CPU.
>>
>> Consider the following example:
>>
>> CPU #0 CPU #1
>> ---- ----
>> hrtimer_start() ...
>> lock_hrtimer_base()
>> switch_hrtimer_base()
>> this_cpu = 0;
>> target_cpu_base = 0;
>> raw_spin_unlock(&cpu_base->lock)
>> <migrate to CPU 1>
>
> Errm. switch_hrtimer_base() is called with interrupts disabled and
> they stay disabled, so how exactly is the task going to be migrated?
My mistake - I missed that important fact. Please disregard this.
Thanks,
Mike
--
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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