[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5205C4BB.6020003@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 21:42:35 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: Re-tune x86 uaccess code for PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY
On 08/09/2013 04:04 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> This patch kit is an attempt to get us back to sane code,
> mostly by doing proper inlining and doing sleep checks in the right
> place. Unfortunately I had to add one tree sweep to avoid an nasty
> include loop.
>
> It costs a bit of text space, but I think it's worth it
> (if only to keep my blood pressure down while reading ftrace logs...)
>
Looks nice at first glance.
Now, here is a bigger question: shouldn't we be deprecating/getting rid
of PREEMPT_VOUNTARY in favor of PREEMPT?
-hpa
--
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