On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 09:56:12AM -0600, Maynard Johnson wrote:
> I haven't seen that the scheduler patch series got applied yet. This
> Cell spu task notification patch is a pre-req for OProfile development
> to support profiling SPUs. When the scheduler patch gets applied to a
> kernel version that fits our needs for our OProfile development, I don't
> see any problem in using the sched_flags field instead of notify_active.
I'll hopefull commit these patches this weekend, I'm at a conference
currently so not really able to do a lot of work. If you need to make
more progress until than just apply the hunk that introduces sched_flags
before doing your patch.
> Yes, the yield() and the memory barriers were leftovers from an earlier
> ill-conceived attempt at solving this problem. They should have been
> removed. They're gone now.
Ok.
> I hesitated doing this since it would entail changing spu_switch_notify
> from being static to non-static. I'd like to get Arnd's opinion on this
> question before going ahead and making such a change.
There is no difference in impact between marking a function non-static
and adding a trivial wrapper around it, only that the latter creates
more bloat. So I don't think there's a good argument against this.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
