On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:00:39 -0800 "Christian Limpach" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:14:45 -0800 Dan Hecht
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>> config PREEMPT
> > >>> bool "Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop)"
> > >>> + depends on !XEN
> > >>> help
> > >>> This option reduces the latency of the kernel by making
> > >>> all kernel code (that is not executing in a critical section)
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >
> > > Oh, so that's why it doesn't break when CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.
> > In which case
> > > that preempt_disable() I spotted is wrong-and-unneeded.
> > >
> > > Why doesn't Xen work with preemption??
> > >
> >
> > I've forgotten the details. Ian? Keir? Steven? Maybe it
> > can be done.
>
> With CONFIG_PREEMPT, we can have preempted threads reference machine
> addresses across save/restore. After restore, these machine addresses
> will be incorrect.
>
It would help if you could define the terms "save/restore" and "machine
addresses". One can guess, but there are probably subtleties here..
Are the places where the domU code references machine addresses splattered
all over the code? If not, they can just be wrapped with
preempt_disable/preempt_enable?
-
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]
