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/
