* Peter Zijlstra ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 13:16 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > ---
> > > include/asm-i386/local.h | 7 ++++---
> > > include/asm-x86_64/local.h | 7 ++++---
> > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux-2.6/include/asm-i386/local.h
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux-2.6.orig/include/asm-i386/local.h
> > > +++ linux-2.6/include/asm-i386/local.h
> > > @@ -197,11 +197,12 @@ static __inline__ long local_sub_return(
> > > #define __local_begin(__flags) \
> > > { \
> > > (__flags) = 0; \
> > > - preempt_disable(); \
> > > + migrate_disable(); \
> >
> > Brrrr. That's wrong. Your non atomic __local*() updates only makes sense
> > when preempt_disable/enable() protects them from concurrent threads on
> > the same CPU, which is not the case of migrate_disable/enable(). This is
> > why I suggest that you use local_begin/end() mapped to
> > migrate_disable/enable() for normal local variables, and, if you really
> > want a __local_begin/end(), then it should be mapped to
> > preempt_disable/enable() and should state that it provides no protection
> > against interrupts.
>
> Sure, but on -rt it does suffice, this part of the patch is rather WIP.
>
>
Hrm, how can it suffice, I wonder ? migrate_disable() does not protect
against other threads on the same CPU, so you could suffer from
concurrent updates to the same variables. How is it different in -rt ?
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
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/
