lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
FromKumar Gala <>
SubjectRe: Problem with cpu_rest() change
DateTue, 25 Jan 2005 23:45:33 -0600
Will these changes cause us to back out the patch already made to 
arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c for systems that did not support powersavings?

- kumar

On Jan 25, 2005, at 5:49 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 10:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> > it can be bad for the idle task to hold the BKL and to have > preemption>  > enabled - in such a situation the scheduler will get confused if an
>  > interrupt triggers a forced preemption in that small window. But > it's>  > not necessary to keep IRQs disabled after the BKL has been dropped. > In>  > fact i think IRQ-disabling doesnt have to be done at all, the patch
>  > below ought to solve this scenario equally well, and should solve > the>  > PPC side-effects too.>  >> > Tested ontop of 2.6.11-rc2 on x86 PREEMPT+SMP and PREEMPT+!SMP (which
>  > IIRC were the config variants that triggered the original problem), > on>  > an SMP and on a UP system.>> Excellent, thanks.>> Ben.>>>> ->  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/

-
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]
©2003-2008