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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox