Re: [PATCH for 2.5] preemptible kernel

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2001 at 08:19:54PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> Ouch.  What about all the per cpu structures in the kernel, how do you
> handle them if a preempted task can be rescheduled on another cpu?
> 
>  int count[NR_CPUS], *p;
>  p = count+smp_processor_id(); /* start on cpu 0, &count[0] */
>  if (*p >= 1024) {
>    /* preempt here, reschedule on cpu 1 */
>    *p = 1;  /* update cpu 0 count from cpu 1, oops */
>   }
> 
> Unless you find every use of a per cpu structure and wrap a spin lock
> around it, migrating a task from one cpu to another is going to be a
> source of wierd and wonderful errors.  Since the main use of per cpu
> structures is to avoid locks, adding a spin lock to every structure
> will be a killer.  Or have I missed something?

That's why Linus suggested it for UP only.

Andrea
-
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/