Re: Problem with cpu_rest() change

[Kumar Gala]

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