Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:01:36 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] preempt-smp.patch, 2.6.9-rc1-bk14 |
| |
* Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@linuxpower.ca> wrote:
> > In addition to the preemption latency problems, the _irq() variants in > > the above list didnt do any IRQ-enabling while spinning - possibly > > resulting in excessive irqs-off sections of code! > > I had a patch for this > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0405.3/0578.html and it > has been running for about 3 months now on a heavily used 4 processor > box. It's all a matter of whether Andrew is feeling brave ;)
at a quick glance your patch doesnt seem to cover the following locking primitives: read_lock_irqsave(), read_lock_irq(), write_lock_irqsave, write_lock_irq(). Also, i think your 2.6.6 patch doesnt apply anymore because it clashes with your very nice out-of-line spinlocks patch that went into -BK recently ;)
anyway, the preempt-smp.patch is a complete and systematic solution that has been tested, measured and traced quite heavily.
Ingo - 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/
| |