On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 12:04, Russell King wrote:
>
> Please substantiate your claim that up() is very expensive on ARM.
> I disagree:
I should have made it clear that I was talking about the RT version of
up() . The RT version doesn't have any assembly in it, and it is
expensive.
> Plus
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 09:05:21AM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> The other patch enabled interrupt before calling up on
> kernel_sem ..This one could use some thinking over. I did this cause
> up() is very expensive on ARM , and combined with the looping above
> interrupts can stay off for
On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 09:30, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> i'm wondering what the best approach would be. Right now if
> DIRECT_PREEMPT is enabled [it's disabled currently] and a higher-prio
> task has been woken up we switch to it without ever enabling interrupts
> again. Re-enabling interrupts during s
* Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I found some points during schedule when interrupts are off
> for long periods . These two patches seem to help. One enables
> interrupts inside schedule() , so that interrupts are enabled after
> each need-resched loop, then disabled again bef
I found some points during schedule when interrupts are off for
long periods . These two patches seem to help. One enables interrupts
inside schedule() , so that interrupts are enabled after each
need-resched loop, then disabled again before __schedule() is called.
The other patch
5 matches
Mail list logo
