From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F30D67A6F for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:28:58 +1100 (EST) From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Takeharu KATO In-Reply-To: <42383D85.7050108@ybb.ne.jp> References: <20050303124435.GA24233@Redstar.dorchain.net> <4227153C.3030201@gmx.net> <20050303141832.GU25080@Redstar.dorchain.net> <20050304075703.GA15637@Redstar.dorchain.net> <422FD24F.4070108@jp.fujitsu.com> <20050310072803.GR4017@Redstar.dorchain.net> <423073A9.70404@ybb.ne.jp> <4231387D.6030204@jp.fujitsu.com> <1110932285.25201.66.camel@gaston> <4237C319.4050109@jp.fujitsu.com> <4237C8F0.1010605@jp.fujitsu.com> <1110954539.5272.0.camel@gaston> <42383D85.7050108@ybb.ne.jp> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:28:43 +1100 Message-Id: <1111012124.15509.18.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev list Subject: Re: boot time scheduling hile atomic List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:07 +0900, Takeharu KATO wrote: > Hi Benjamin: > > I can not figure out why my previous patch is more preferable than > later one. > Could you explain the reason of that please. There may be other kernel bits calling syscall, it sounds saner to always make sure we don't reschedule when in atomic (though it's dubious that it's allowed to do syscalls in atomic regions, let's be safe there). In fact, we are thinking about consolidating the syscall return path and the normal irq return path like we did on ppc64. Ben.