From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: make callers check lock contention for
 cond_resched_lock()
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 17:47:30 +0200
Message-ID: <1336060050.22523.23.camel@twins>
References: <20120503171244.2debdd80931ccf35f387c5fe@gmail.com>
	 <1336034127.13683.197.camel@twins>
	 <20120503212244.6abbfa8bc3f46a7f7a932bb7@gmail.com>
	 <1336048150.22523.17.camel@twins>
	 <20120503220050.e91938418f882b4075526e08@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com,
	mtosatti@redhat.com, yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120503220050.e91938418f882b4075526e08@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 22:00 +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> But as I could not see why spin_needbreak() was differently
> implemented
> depending on CONFIG_PREEMPT, I wanted to understand the meaning. 

Its been that way since before voluntary preemption was introduced, so
its possible Ingo simply missed that spot and nobody noticed until now.

Ingo, do you have any recollections from back when?