Will these changes cause us to back out the patch already made to
arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c for systems that did not support powersavings?
- kumar
On Jan 25, 2005, at 5:49 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 10:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> it can be bad for the idle task to hold the BKL and to have
preemption
> enabled - in such a situation the scheduler will get confused if an
> interrupt triggers a forced preemption in that small window. But
it's
> not necessary to keep IRQs disabled after the BKL has been dropped.
In
> fact i think IRQ-disabling doesnt have to be done at all, the patch
> below ought to solve this scenario equally well, and should solve
the
> PPC side-effects too.
>
> Tested ontop of 2.6.11-rc2 on x86 PREEMPT+SMP and PREEMPT+!SMP (which
> IIRC were the config variants that triggered the original problem),
on
> an SMP and on a UP system.
Excellent, thanks.
Ben.
-
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/
-
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/
