On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 00:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I don't know. irqs_off_preempt_count() could get used someplace else,
> > where you would want to flip the preempt_count() check .. It seems
> > sane to combine your patch with mine ..
> >
> > irqs_off_preempt_count() (!__get_cpu_var(trace_cpu_idle) &&
> > preempt_count())
> >
> > You can't call __get_cpu_var() without the a positive preempt_count(),
> > so the check seems backwards regardless of the other factors ..
>
> yeah. The whole trace_preempt_enter_idle() thing looks a bit suspect.
> Why cannot those architectures simply disable/enable preemption and get
> the same effect? It's not like we ever want to allow the preemption of
> the idle task.
They disable interrupts it looks like (i386, and x86_64), around the
same area where those trace_preempt_enter_idle calls are placed .. I'm
not up on the details of Steve's fix .. There's also a
preempt_disable/preempt_enable ..
I'm not up on the details of Steve's fix , but stuff looks a little
odd ..
Daniel
-
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]
