From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: Isolate preempt counting in its own config option
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:09:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1307563754.2497.999.camel@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110608195816.GJ2324@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 12:58 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 09:47:14PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 19:48 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >
> > > Create a new CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT that handles the inc/dec
> > > of preempt count offset independently. So that the offset
> > > can be updated by preempt_disable() and preempt_enable()
> > > even without the need for CONFIG_PREEMPT beeing set.
> > >
> > > This prepares to make CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP working
> > > with !CONFIG_PREEMPT where it currently doesn't detect
> > > code that sleeps inside explicit preemption disabled
> > > sections.
> >
> > The last time this got proposed it got shot down due to the extra
> > inc/dec stuff all over the place increasing overhead significantly.
>
> Even given that the extra inc/dec stuff only happens in kernels built
> with DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP=y (DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y after patch 4/4)?
Ah, no that might be ok. That's what I get for trying to read email in
no time.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-08 20:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-08 17:48 [PATCH 0/4] sched: Make sleep inside atomic detection work on !PREEMPT Frederic Weisbecker
2011-06-08 17:48 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched: Remove pointless in_atomic() definition check Frederic Weisbecker
2011-06-08 17:48 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched: Isolate preempt counting in its own config option Frederic Weisbecker
2011-06-08 19:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-06-08 19:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-06-08 19:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-06-08 20:09 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2011-06-08 17:48 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched: Make sleeping inside spinlock detection working in !CONFIG_PREEMPT Frederic Weisbecker
2011-06-08 19:40 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-06-08 17:48 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched: Generalize sleep inside spinlock detection Frederic Weisbecker
2011-06-08 19:41 ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-06-08 22:49 ` Bug: ACPI, scheduling while atomic (was Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched: Make sleep inside atomic detection work on !PREEMPT) Frederic Weisbecker
2011-08-25 3:57 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-08-27 15:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2011-09-26 22:33 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2011-09-26 22:54 ` Paul E. McKenney
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-06-10 13:30 [GIT PULL] sched: Make sleep inside atomic detection work on !PREEMPT Frederic Weisbecker
2011-06-10 13:30 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched: Isolate preempt counting in its own config option Frederic Weisbecker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1307563754.2497.999.camel@laptop \
--to=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.