lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectWhy we need to call cpu_idle() with preemption disabled
From
Date
Hi, Thomas

Just traced the preemption latency of 2.6.33-rt7 on my Yeeloong netbook
with the preemptoff tracer of Ftrace and found it is very big in
cpu_idle(), more than 1000 us.

And found that we have called cpu_idle() in init/main.c with preemption
disabled? why we need to do it? can we simply call it with preemption
enabled?

diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
index 48393c0..437ac34 100644
--- a/init/main.c
+++ b/init/main.c
@@ -428,9 +428,8 @@ static noinline void __init_refok rest_init(void)
*/
init_idle_bootup_task(current);
preempt_enable_and_schedule();
- preempt_disable();

- /* Call into cpu_idle with preempt disabled */
+ /* There is no reason for calling cpu_idle with preemption
disabled */
cpu_idle();
}

After removing that preempt_disable() and the related operations around
the calling to __schedule() in the cpu_idle(), the result becomes around
200 us, which is acceptable for I have enabled several Ftrace tracers.
Best Regards,
Wu Zhangjin



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-16 10:11    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans