lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] PREEMPT_RT_FULL Build error fix
From
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, John Kacur wrote:
>
>> Problem:
>> make O=/bld/3.0.3-rt11/ kernel/fork.o
>> /home/jkacur/jk-2.6/kernel/fork.c:91: error: section of ‘name’ conflicts with previous declaration
>>
>> __cacheline_aligned is already part of the definition of DEFINE_RWLOCK
>> for -rt
>>
>> However it is not always used for the tasklist_lock in non-rt, so it can't
>> simply be added to the definition of DEFINE_RWLOCK in non-rt, so I modified
>> the definition in fork.c
>
> -ENOPARSE
>
> The real question is whether RWLOCKS should be cacheline aligned in
> general or the RT addon is just overkill. Slapping an ifdef around
> does not answer that.
>

Right, this was just a "put out a build-break fire" for now patch and
not a good long term patch. I noticed that of all the mainline
DEFINE_RWLOCKs that only the tasklist_lock is cache aligned. I'm
wondering if there is a reason for that, or just more of a historical
accident.

Regarding cache aligning the rwlocks in -rt, I also can't find the
historical reason for it, do you remember if it was for latency
performance, or did we have a atomicity issue on some architectures
when we didn't cache align it?

Thanks
--
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: 2011-09-06 11:29    [W:0.050 / U:1.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site