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]