[lkml]   [2002]   [Aug]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] misc. kernel preemption bits
On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 14:38, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> I think we should return silently, and simply consider the case of
> disabled local interrupts to be equivalent to having preemption disabled.
> So I would remove even the warning.
> Comments?

This is a tough question.

I originally did just that but Ingo said we should aim to find the
problem areas, too. The issue is, for 99% of the cases, disabling
interrupts really is equivalent to disabling preemption (e.g.
preempt_schedule() is never called). For the remaining 1% of the cases,
it is possible to fix up the problems by playing safely with interrupts

We _must_ return since we are seeing these in the wild. If we want to
leave the debug checking to try to "fix" the remaining cases we can do
so too.

How about this: add the return now (i.e. accept the patch as-is) and
keep the debug check so we can continue to find areas that cause
incorrect preemptions. Before 2.6, I will send a patch to remove the
check and just return silently.

Sound good?

Robert Love

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.046 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site