Messages in this thread | | | From | Kumar Gala <> | Subject | Re: Problem with cpu_rest() change | Date | Tue, 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/
| |