From: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@redhat.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Alexey Starikovskiy <aystarik@gmail.com>,
Alexey Starikovskiy <astarikovskiy@suse.de>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>,
"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V2] acpi: don't cond_resched if irq is disabled
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:02:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B3849F6.1080403@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091211173424.GC15760@elf.ucw.cz>
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?
> Pavel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-28 6:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-04 4:26 [PATCH] ACPICA: don't cond_resched() when irq_disabled or in_atomic Xiaotian Feng
2009-12-04 5:36 ` Zhang Rui
2009-12-04 5:38 ` Zhang Rui
2009-12-04 6:50 ` Justin Mattock
2009-12-04 7:05 ` Danny Feng
2009-12-04 7:27 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-12-09 1:54 ` Xiaotian Feng
2009-12-10 10:09 ` Pavel Machek
2009-12-10 11:56 ` [PATCH -V2] acpi: don't cond_resched if irq is disabled Xiaotian Feng
2009-12-10 12:21 ` Alexey Starikovskiy
2009-12-11 5:46 ` Lin Ming
2009-12-11 11:48 ` Alexey Starikovskiy
2009-12-11 16:15 ` Pavel Machek
2009-12-11 16:25 ` Alexey Starikovskiy
2009-12-11 17:34 ` Pavel Machek
2009-12-28 6:02 ` Xiaotian Feng [this message]
2009-12-28 11:12 ` Alexey Starikovskiy
2010-01-16 6:44 ` Len Brown
2009-12-10 17:58 ` [PATCH] ACPICA: don't cond_resched() when irq_disabled or in_atomic Alexey Starikovskiy
2009-12-10 18:18 ` Pavel Machek
2009-12-10 18:37 ` Alexey Starikovskiy
2009-12-10 22:46 ` Justin P. Mattock
2009-12-10 22:54 ` Moore, Robert
2010-01-16 6:46 ` Len Brown
2009-12-11 17:33 ` Pavel Machek
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=4B3849F6.1080403@redhat.com \
--to=dfeng@redhat.com \
--cc=astarikovskiy@suse.de \
--cc=aystarik@gmail.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.m.lin@intel.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=robert.moore@intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).