From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: RE: [PATCH][UPSTREAM]net,RT:Remove preemption disabling in netif_rx() Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 00:31:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <1337227511-2271-1-git-send-email-Priyanka.Jain@freescale.com> <1337865466.13348.175.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Jain Priyanka-B32167 , "linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org" , Srivastava Rajan-B34330 To: Steven Rostedt Return-path: Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:40225 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752517Ab2EYWbX (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 May 2012 18:31:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1337865466.13348.175.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 24 May 2012, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 04:28 +0000, Jain Priyanka-B32167 wrote: > > Waiting for review comments on this. > > > > > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c index 452db70..4017820 100644 > > --- a/net/core/dev.c > > +++ b/net/core/dev.c > > @@ -2940,7 +2940,7 @@ int netif_rx(struct sk_buff *skb) > > struct rps_dev_flow voidflow, *rflow = &voidflow; > > int cpu; > > > > - preempt_disable(); > > + migrate_disable(); > > I really want to avoid placing open coded migrate_disable() around the > kernel. Perhaps we should use "get_cpu_light()" here too. No. get_cpu_light() and migrate_disable() are different. Following your argument we would have to replace preempt_disable() with get_cpu() all over the place. Thanks, tglx