![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Alan Cox wrote: > > NOTE! There are potentially other ways to do all of this, _without_ losing > > atomicity. For example, you can move the "flags" value into the slot saved > > for the CS segment (which, modulo vm86, will always be at a constant > > offset on the stack), and make CS=0 be the work flag. That will cause the > > CPU to trap atomically at the "iret".> > Is the test even needed. Suppose we instead patch the return stack if we > set need_resched/sigpending, and do it on the rare occassion we set the > value. Yes, that's what you'll find in one of Ingo Molnar's low latency patches. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||