lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.6.10-mm2] Use the new preemption code [2/3] Resend
From
Date
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 12:02, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i wouldnt raise this issue if it was the name only, but there's more to
> preempt_schedule_irq() than its name: it gets called with irqs off and
> the scheduler returns with irqs off and with a guarantee that there is
> no (irq-generated) pending preemption request for this task right now.
> I.e. the checks for need_resched can be skipped, and interrupts dont
> have to be disabled to do a safe return-to-usermode (as done on some
> architectures).
>
> as far as i can see do_preempt_schedule() doesnt have these properties:
> what it guarantees is that it avoids the preemption recursion via the
> lowlevel code doing the PREEMPT_ACTIVE setting.
>
> lets agree upon a single, common approach. I went for splitting up
> preempt_schedule() into two variants: the 'synchronous' one (called
> preempt_schedule()) is only called from syscall level and has no
> repeat-preemption and hence stack-recursion worries. The 'asynchronous'
> one (called preempt_schedule_irq()) is called from asynchronous contexts
> (hardirq events) and is fully ready to deal with all the reentrancy
> situations that may occur. It's careful about not re-enabling
> interrupts, etc.

Sure, I guessed that from your short description that it implies more
than the seperation I have done. I have no objection against your
approach at all.

tglx


-
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 14:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site