Re: [PATCH -rt] revert bh_lru_lock() to preempt_disable()

* Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:

> > i agree that this is a problem, but the fix is incorrect. What would be 
> > the right approach is to convert the PER_CPU bh_lrus to PER_CPU_LOCKED, 
> > and to use the appropriate primitives to use them. That automatically 
> > makes this code rt-safe. (it isnt right now)
> 
> Hmm, in UP it should be safe to access per cpu data under either a 
> preempt_disable or local_irq_disable . I'm not sure how RT changes 
> that .. Is there some other part of the code that isn't rt-safe, which 
> I've overlooked ?

hm, you are right - that code can be in a preempt-off section. I've 
applied your patch.

	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/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH -rt] revert bh_lru_lock() to preempt_disable()
  - From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>

References:
- [PATCH -rt] revert bh_lru_lock() to preempt_disable()
  - From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH -rt] revert bh_lru_lock() to preempt_disable()
  - From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH -rt] revert bh_lru_lock() to preempt_disable()
  - From: Daniel Walker <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: RE: Compiling C++ modules
Next by Date: [RFC] [PATCH 2/2] Multi-threaded execution of ACPI control methods (continued)
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH -rt] revert bh_lru_lock() to preempt_disable()
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH -rt] revert bh_lru_lock() to preempt_disable()
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]