[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141103215837.GB8711@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 22:58:37 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Sebastian Lackner <sebastian@...-team.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@...il.com>,
Anish Bhatt <anish@...lsio.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] sched/x86_64: Don't save flags on context switch
On 11/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 11/03, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > And do we ever have TF set during a context switch? I hope not.
>
> I too hope.
>
> > Also, what's with 'jmp exit_intr' at the end of retint_kernel? Why
> > isn't that 'jmp retint_kernel'?
>
> Even better, why not "jmp retint_restore_args" ?
>
> preempt_schedule_irq() checks need_resched() and returns with irqs
> disabled, not need to to recheck test_preempt_need_resched() ?
Btw, why retint_kernel() checks "interrupts on" ? It seems to me that
that "interrupts off" is not possible, no? And this will be more clear
when we remove the "exit_intr" label.
Oleg.
--
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