On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:08:40 +1000
Keith Owens <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andi Kleen (on Tue, 13 Jun 2006 06:56:45 +0200) wrote:
> >
> >> I have previously suggested a lightweight solution that pins a process
> >> to a cpu
> >
> >That is preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() effectively
> >It's also light weight as much as these things can be.
>
> The difference being that preempt_disable() does not allow the code to
> sleep. There are some places where we want to use cpu local data and
> the code can tolerate preemption and even sleeping, as long as the
> process schedules back on the same cpu.
It would be easy to use this mechanism wrongly:
thread 1 on CPU N thread 2 on CPU N
foo = per_cpu(...)
<preempt>
foo = per_cpu(...);
foo++;
per_cpu(...) = foo;
<unpreempt>
foo++;
per_cpu(...) = foo; // whoops
In which scenarios did you envisage it being used?
-
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]
