* Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Replaced Ingo's address with kernel.org one,
>
> On Thu, 03 May 2012 17:47:30 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 22:00 +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > > But as I could not see why spin_needbreak() was differently
> > > implemented
> > > depending on CONFIG_PREEMPT, I wanted to understand the meaning.
> >
> > Its been that way since before voluntary preemption was introduced, so
> > its possible Ingo simply missed that spot and nobody noticed until now.
> >
> > Ingo, do you have any recollections from back when?
>
> ping
I'm not sure we had a usable spin_is_contended() back then, nor
was the !PREEMPT case in my mind really.
( The patch looks ugly though, in 99% of the lines it just does
something that cond_resched_lock() itself could do. )
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
