[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509291510510.4500@nanos>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:11:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com,
umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 02/11] sched: Create preempt_count invariant
On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> + /*
> + * Still have preempt_count() == 2, from:
> + *
> + * schedule()
> + * preempt_disable(); // 1
> + * __schedule()
> + * raw_spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock) // 2
> + */
> + rq = finish_task_switch(prev); /* drops rq->lock, preempt_count() == 1 */
> balance_callback(rq);
> - preempt_enable();
> + preempt_enable(); /* preempt_count() == 0 */
Bah. I so hate tail comments. What's wrong with
+ /* preempt_count() ==> 0 */
preempt_enable();
Hmm?
tglx
--
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