Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 09:13:57AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-05-23 at 10:22 +0100, Russell King wrote:
>>> In which case shouldn't it be at the end of the function so it includes
>>> the write buffer handling as well?
>>>
>>> However, I think I agree with Daniel on this one. I don't see the point
>>> of the preempt_disable() here.
>> Note that my patch simply adds an enable to match the disable added by
>> the -rt patch. I'm not sure where the disable originally came from, but
>> there are disable/enable pairs scattered throughout tlbflush.h in the
>> -rt patch.
>>
>> If this one isn't necessary, then the others probably are not either.
>> In most cases there are 2 mcr instructions inside the critical section.
>> One for the dsb() and the other for the actual function.
>>
>> Russell, is there a reason any of these sections should be atomic?
>
> I don't see any reason for them to be - when switching to another process
> we'll generally do a full TLB flush anyway, so what's the point in making
> these flushes atomic?
OK, I've removed the locally and will be doing some testing on OMAP2
(ARMv6.) I'll submit a patch to Ingo if things look good.
In the meantime, my previous fix is still necessary for -rt to even work
on ARM.
Kevin
-
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]
