lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateMon, 13 Jun 2005 11:13:09 +0200
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-06-13 11:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2009