Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267825AbUIBIBk (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2004 04:01:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267831AbUIBIBk (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2004 04:01:40 -0400 Received: from fep02-0.kolumbus.fi ([193.229.0.44]:21924 "EHLO fep02-app.kolumbus.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267825AbUIBH5N (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2004 03:57:13 -0400 X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.10 (webedge20-101-191-20030113) X-Originating-IP: [62.236.163.232] From: To: Ingo Molnar CC: linux-kernel Subject: Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q8 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:57:12 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20040902075712.DGPM28426.fep02-app.kolumbus.fi@mta.imail.kolumbus.fi> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 702 Lines: 12 Ingo, I think there might be a problem with voluntary-preempt's hadling of softirqs. Namely, in cond_resched_softirq(), you do __local_bh_enable() and local_bh_disable(). But it may be the case that the softirq is handled from ksoftirqd, and then the preempt_count isn't elevated with SOFTIRQ_OFFSET (only PF_SOFTIRQ is set). So the __local_bh_enable() actually makes preempt_count negative, which might have bad effects. Or am I missing something? Mika - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/