linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* status of PREEMPT and SMP together?
@ 2004-03-17 21:30 Chris Friesen
  2004-03-17 22:00 ` Robert Love
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Chris Friesen @ 2004-03-17 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Linux kernel


Some of the Kconfig files (ppc/ppc64) seem to be of the opinion that 
there are races when both SMP and PREEMPT are enabled.

Is this still the case, or are they out of date?

Thanks,

Chris

-- 
Chris Friesen                    | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks                  | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue              | fax:  (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada        | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: status of PREEMPT and SMP together?
  2004-03-17 21:30 status of PREEMPT and SMP together? Chris Friesen
@ 2004-03-17 22:00 ` Robert Love
  2004-03-17 23:36   ` Anton Blanchard
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Robert Love @ 2004-03-17 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chris Friesen; +Cc: Linux kernel

On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 16:30, Chris Friesen wrote:

> Some of the Kconfig files (ppc/ppc64) seem to be of the opinion that 
> there are races when both SMP and PREEMPT are enabled.
> 
> Is this still the case, or are they out of date?

Hrm, I thought I sent Anton a patch to fix that.

The comment is out of date.  Technically speaking, the potential
SMP+PREEMPT races exist on UP+PREEMPT, too.

Running SMP+PREEMPT on a 4-way here :-)

	Robert Love



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: status of PREEMPT and SMP together?
  2004-03-17 22:00 ` Robert Love
@ 2004-03-17 23:36   ` Anton Blanchard
  2004-03-18  0:24     ` Robert Love
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Anton Blanchard @ 2004-03-17 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Robert Love; +Cc: Chris Friesen, Linux kernel, akpm


> Hrm, I thought I sent Anton a patch to fix that.

Sorry, I had planned to send it once Linus got over his deep freeze mode
but forgot. Here it is.

Now that the option is selectable I marked it BROKEN for the moment
since we havent got around to doing the low level exception bits yet...
Do you have a G5 yet? :)

> The comment is out of date.  Technically speaking, the potential
> SMP+PREEMPT races exist on UP+PREEMPT, too.
> 
> Running SMP+PREEMPT on a 4-way here :-)

--

From: Robert Love <rml@ximian.com>

arch/ppc64/Kconfig's entry for CONFIG_PREEMPT is missing the description
after the "bool" statement, so the entry does not show up.

Also, the help description mentions a restriction that is not [any
longer] true.

===== arch/ppc64/Kconfig 1.50 vs edited =====
--- 1.50/arch/ppc64/Kconfig	Sun Mar  7 18:05:28 2004
+++ edited/arch/ppc64/Kconfig	Thu Mar 18 10:33:17 2004
@@ -174,14 +179,12 @@
 	depends on DISCONTIGMEM
 
 config PREEMPT
-	bool
+	bool "Preemptible Kernel"
+	depends on BROKEN
 	help
 	  This option reduces the latency of the kernel when reacting to
 	  real-time or interactive events by allowing a low priority process to
 	  be preempted even if it is in kernel mode executing a system call.
-	  Unfortunately the kernel code has some race conditions if both
-	  CONFIG_SMP and CONFIG_PREEMPT are enabled, so this option is
-	  currently disabled if you are building an SMP kernel.
 
 	  Say Y here if you are building a kernel for a desktop, embedded
 	  or real-time system.  Say N if you are unsure.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: status of PREEMPT and SMP together?
  2004-03-17 23:36   ` Anton Blanchard
@ 2004-03-18  0:24     ` Robert Love
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Robert Love @ 2004-03-18  0:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Anton Blanchard; +Cc: Chris Friesen, Linux kernel, akpm

On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 18:36, Anton Blanchard wrote:

> Sorry, I had planned to send it once Linus got over his deep freeze mode
> but forgot. Here it is.

Thanks.

> Now that the option is selectable I marked it BROKEN for the moment
> since we havent got around to doing the low level exception bits yet...
> Do you have a G5 yet? :)

Unfortunately, no. ;-)

I think the low-level bits are there for PPC32, right?  So just PPC64 is
missing the kernel entry/exit and interrupt changes?

	Robert Love





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2004-03-18  0:25 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-03-17 21:30 status of PREEMPT and SMP together? Chris Friesen
2004-03-17 22:00 ` Robert Love
2004-03-17 23:36   ` Anton Blanchard
2004-03-18  0:24     ` Robert Love

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).