Re: [PATCH -V2] acpi: don't cond_resched if irq is disabled

[Alexey Starikovskiy]

Xiaotian Feng ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> On 12/12/2009 01:34 AM, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>
>>>>> If there are none, fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
>>>>>> # define preemptible()  (preempt_count() == 0&&  !irqs_disabled())
>>>>>> # define IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET (HARDIRQ_OFFSET-1)
>>>>>> #else
>>>>>> # define preemptible()  0
>>>>>> # define IRQ_EXIT_OFFSET HARDIRQ_OFFSET
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, normally we want low latency even for !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, explicit preemption points are NOPs for CONFIG_PREEMPT
>>>> kernels, right?
>>
>>> Right. Do you have code?
>>
>> I'd prefer to spend my time with patches to areas that actually do
>> take cleanup patches.
> 
> What's the status of this now? We can still see the sleeping function
> call warning or enable irq at resume stage.
> If acpi wants low latency even for !CONFIG_PREEMPT kernels, what's wrong
> with V2 patch?
> 
> We should not set any preemption points in irq or atomic. Since we have
> a simple fix, and it did fix bugs, why should
> we make things more complex?
We should not do anything complex here, you are right.
Consider me ACK your patch.

Thanks,
Alex

--
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/