On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 11:54:50PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 18:46 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > > If you are talking about scheduler_tick, then yes, it is called by the
> > > timer interrupt which is a SA_NODELAY interrupt. If you don't want to
> > > get interru
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 18:46 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > If you are talking about scheduler_tick, then yes, it is called by the
> > timer interrupt which is a SA_NODELAY interrupt. If you don't want to
> > get interrupted by the timer interrupt, then you will need to disable
> > interrupts
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 07:47:15PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 14:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > Yeah, mips has the crazy Load Linked and Store Conditional crap, so it
> > > is a little more complex than the simple add one. And I think PPC does
> > > too, although
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 14:34 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, mips has the crazy Load Linked and Store Conditional crap, so it
> > is a little more complex than the simple add one. And I think PPC does
> > too, although it has been a while since I've used them. And older mips
> > don
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 04:04:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 12:28 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >
> > > So is there a difference on UP between x.counter++ and atomic_inc(&x)?
> >
> > On x86, you are right. The full list of architectures that are atomic
> > only i
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:26:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So, time to get serious about a bit of code cleanup:
> >
> > o The heavyweight atomic operations in rcu_read_lock() and
> > rcu_read_unlock() are not needed in UP kernels, since
>
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 12:28 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > So is there a difference on UP between x.counter++ and atomic_inc(&x)?
>
> On x86, you are right. The full list of architectures that are atomic
> only in SMP are i386 (as you noted), parisc, sparc, and x86_64.
>
> The architect
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 01:05:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 09:30 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > OK, counter-flip RCU actually survives a pair of overnight runs on
> > CONFIG_PREEMPT running on 4-CPU machines, and also survives five
> > kernbenches an
* Paul E. McKenney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> OK, counter-flip RCU actually survives a pair of overnight runs on
> CONFIG_PREEMPT running on 4-CPU machines, and also survives five
> kernbenches and an LTP on another 4-CPU machine. [...]
cool!
> So, time to get serious about a bi
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 09:30 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
>
> OK, counter-flip RCU actually survives a pair of overnight runs on
> CONFIG_PREEMPT running on 4-CPU machines, and also survives five
> kernbenches and an LTP on another 4-CPU machine. (Overnight-run script
> later in this me
Hello!
OK, counter-flip RCU actually survives a pair of overnight runs on
CONFIG_PREEMPT running on 4-CPU machines, and also survives five
kernbenches and an LTP on another 4-CPU machine. (Overnight-run script
later in this message, FWIW.)
So, time to get serious about a bit of code cleanup:
o
11 matches
Mail list logo
