* Esben Nielsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> I will also try to make a lock which introduces the "notion of
> locallity" (i.e. have the same semantics as a normal spin_lock/mutex)
> into the code, but in !PREEMPT_RT will turn out to be just
> local_irq_disable() or preempt_disable(). A lot of the
> local_irq_disable() should be replaced with that.
yes, this would be the right approach. Note that we already do something
like that in the per_cpu_locked API, we hide a spinlock there, which
gets turned off for !PREEMPT_RT. For local_irq_disable() replacements
we'd need a separate API.
(one thing to watch out for are smp_call_function() handlers. These
still execute in hardirq context even on PREEMPT_RT. E.g. in buffer.c
you'll see such code.)
Ingo
-
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]
