Re: [PATCH for 2.5] preemptible kernel

From: Rusty Russell (rusty@rustcorp.com.au)
Date: Wed Mar 21 2001 - 17:25:47 EST


In message <15032.30533.638717.696704@pizda.ninka.net> you write:
>
> Keith Owens writes:
> > Or have I missed something?
>
> Nope, it is a fundamental problem with such kernel pre-emption
> schemes. As a result, it would also break our big-reader locks
> (see include/linux/brlock.h).

Good point: holding a brlock has to block preemption, as per spinlocks.

> Basically, anything which uses smp_processor_id() would need to
> be holding some lock so as to not get pre-empted.

When I audited the uses of smp_processor_id() for the hotplug cpu
stuff, there were surprisingly few calls to smp_processor_id(), and
most of these will be holding a brlock, so OK already.

Rusty.

--
Premature optmztion is rt of all evl. --DK
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 21:00:20 EST