archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <>
To: Ingo Molnar <>
Cc: Russell King <>,
	LKML <>,
	Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.10-mm2] Use the new preemption code [2/3] Resend
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:46:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 12:02, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i wouldnt raise this issue if it was the name only, but there's more to
> preempt_schedule_irq() than its name: it gets called with irqs off and
> the scheduler returns with irqs off and with a guarantee that there is
> no (irq-generated) pending preemption request for this task right now. 
> I.e. the checks for need_resched can be skipped, and interrupts dont
> have to be disabled to do a safe return-to-usermode (as done on some
> architectures).
> as far as i can see do_preempt_schedule() doesnt have these properties:
> what it guarantees is that it avoids the preemption recursion via the
> lowlevel code doing the PREEMPT_ACTIVE setting.
> lets agree upon a single, common approach. I went for splitting up
> preempt_schedule() into two variants: the 'synchronous' one (called
> preempt_schedule()) is only called from syscall level and has no
> repeat-preemption and hence stack-recursion worries. The 'asynchronous'
> one (called preempt_schedule_irq()) is called from asynchronous contexts
> (hardirq events) and is fully ready to deal with all the reentrancy
> situations that may occur. It's careful about not re-enabling
> interrupts, etc.

Sure, I guessed that from your short description that it implies more
than the seperation I have done. I have no objection against your
approach at all.


  reply	other threads:[~2005-01-10 13:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-01-10  0:35 [PATCH 2.6.10-mm2] Fix preemption race [1/3] (Core) tglx
2005-01-10  0:53 ` [PATCH 2.6.10-mm2] Use the new preemption code [2/3] Thomas Gleixner
2005-01-10  1:06   ` Russell King
2005-01-10  1:18     ` [PATCH 2.6.10-mm2] Use the new preemption code [2/3] Resend Thomas Gleixner
2005-01-10  7:32       ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-10 10:57         ` Thomas Gleixner
2005-01-10  9:46       ` Russell King
2005-01-10 10:12         ` Thomas Gleixner
2005-01-10 11:02           ` Ingo Molnar
2005-01-10 13:46             ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2005-01-10  1:00 ` [PATCH 2.6.10-mm2] Use the new preemption code [3/3] Thomas Gleixner
2005-01-10 14:56   ` Tom Rini
2005-01-10 15:49     ` tglx
2005-01-10  9:15 ` [PATCH 2.6.10-mm2] Fix preemption race [1/3] (Core) Ingo Molnar
2005-01-10 10:14   ` Thomas Gleixner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).