Re: Problem with cpu_rest() change

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/