[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210804163119.t4c7bkpdk33byxtx@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:31:19 +0200
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] v5.14-rc4-rt4
On 2021-08-04 12:25:41 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:22:31 +0200
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> > no preemption happens here with NEED_RESCHED set.
>
> But if interrupts were disabled, how would NEED_RESCHED be set? As soon
> as you enable interrupts, the interrupt that sets NEED_RESCHED would
> trigger the preemption.
CPU-local wake-ups just set NEED_RESCHED and wait for preempt_enable()
to do the magic. Just because the code not perform wake_up() now does
not mean it will not do so in the future. Also it is here as an example
which might be copied somewhere else.
> -- Steve
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists