Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 13 Jun 2005 11:13:09 +0200 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal |
* Esben Nielsen <simlo@phys.au.dk> wrote:
> I will also try to make a lock which introduces the "notion of > locallity" (i.e. have the same semantics as a normal spin_lock/mutex) > into the code, but in !PREEMPT_RT will turn out to be just > local_irq_disable() or preempt_disable(). A lot of the > local_irq_disable() should be replaced with that.
yes, this would be the right approach. Note that we already do something like that in the per_cpu_locked API, we hide a spinlock there, which gets turned off for !PREEMPT_RT. For local_irq_disable() replacements we'd need a separate API.
(one thing to watch out for are smp_call_function() handlers. These still execute in hardirq context even on PREEMPT_RT. E.g. in buffer.c you'll see such code.)
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/
|  |