lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] sched: unlocked context-switches
David Mosberger wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:12:45 +1000, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> said:
>
>
> >> Now, Ingo says that the order is reversed with his patch, i.e.,
> >> switch_mm() happens after switch_to(). That means flush_tlb_mm()
> >> may now see a current->active_mm which hasn't really been
> >> activated yet.
>
> Nick> If that did bother you, could you keep track of the actually
> Nick> activated mm in your arch code? Or would that involve more
> Nick> arch hooks and general ugliness in the scheduler?
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of this. We are already tracking
> care of ownership, just not atomically. What's the point of putting
> another level of (atomic) tracking on top of it. That seems
> exceedingly ugly.
>

Well, you were worried about it not being atomic. So that would be
the point, but I agree it would probably be exceedingly ugly if
implemented.

Nick


-
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: 2005-04-13 05:43    [W:0.043 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site