From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759619AbZDSKSq (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:18:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754243AbZDSKSh (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:18:37 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:39161 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753450AbZDSKSg (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:18:36 -0400 Message-ID: <49EAF9D6.1010600@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2009 13:15:50 +0300 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Ingo Molnar , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Andrew Morton , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Nick Piggin , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow preemption during lazy mmu updates References: <1238176963-21093-1-git-send-email-jeremy@goop.org> <20090408145440.GN12931@elte.hu> <1239203512.4557.2575.camel@laptop> In-Reply-To: <1239203512.4557.2575.camel@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 16:54 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >>> kernel/sched.c | 2 - >>> >> Needs the ack of ... oh, never mind - this one is fine i guess ;-) >> > > Ah, about that. This new preemption hook has slightly different > requirements than the current preempt-notifiers have (hence the new > hook), I was wondering if KVM (afaik currently the only preempt-notifier > consumer) could live with these requirements. > > That is, could these be merged? > What are the slight differences in requirements? KVM wants to run in non-preemptible, interrupts-enabled context. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.