Hi Benjamin
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-19 08:05:30]:
>
> > With the original patch, the pending batch does get flushed
> > in a non-preemptable region.
> > I am resending the original with just adding the necesary comments.
>
> Your comment isn't what I meant. What
> There's lots of semantics that are changed with -rt that should make
> everything still work ;-) Some spinlocks remain real spinlocks, but we
> shouldn't have a problem with most being mutexes.
>
> There's some cases that uses per CPU variables or other per cpu actions
> that require a special
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > With the original patch, the pending batch does get flushed
> > in a non-preemptable region.
> > I am resending the original with just adding the necesary comments.
>
> Your comment isn't what I meant. What I meant is that if the process
> i
> With the original patch, the pending batch does get flushed
> in a non-preemptable region.
> I am resending the original with just adding the necesary comments.
Your comment isn't what I meant. What I meant is that if the process
is context switched while walking the page tables, the low leve
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-18 06:14:31]:
>
> > All these operations are done assuming that tlb_gather_mmu disables
> > preemption and tlb_finish_mmu enables preemption again.
> > This is not true for -rt.
> > For x86, none of the code paths between tlb_gather_mmu and
>
> All these operations are done assuming that tlb_gather_mmu disables
> preemption and tlb_finish_mmu enables preemption again.
> This is not true for -rt.
> For x86, none of the code paths between tlb_gather_mmu and
> tlb_finish_mmu access any per_cpu variables.
> But this is not true for powerpc
Hi Benjamin,
Thanks for the review
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-15 11:32:01]:
> On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 21:35 +0530, Chirag Jog wrote:
> > Hi,
> > This patch fixes various paths in the -rt kernel on powerpc64 where per_cpu
> > variables are accessed in a preempt unsafe wa
On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 21:35 +0530, Chirag Jog wrote:
> Hi,
> This patch fixes various paths in the -rt kernel on powerpc64 where per_cpu
> variables are accessed in a preempt unsafe way.
> When a power box with -rt kernel is booted, multiple BUG messages are
> generated "BUG: init:1 task might have
Hi Chirag,
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:35:43 +0530 Chirag Jog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> This patch fixes various paths in the -rt kernel on powerpc64 where per_cpu
> variables are accessed in a preempt unsafe way.
> When a power box with -rt kernel is booted, multiple BUG messages are
>
Hi,
This patch fixes various paths in the -rt kernel on powerpc64 where per_cpu
variables are accessed in a preempt unsafe way.
When a power box with -rt kernel is booted, multiple BUG messages are
generated "BUG: init:1 task might have lost a preemption check!".
After booting a kernel with these
Hi,
This patch fixes various paths in the -rt kernel on powerpc64 where per_cpu
variables are accessed in a preempt unsafe way.
When a power box with -rt kernel is booted, multiple BUG messages are
generated "BUG: init:1 task might have lost a preemption check!".
After booting a kernel with these
11 matches
Mail list logo
