Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264386AbUJLO0z (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:26:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264500AbUJLOYh (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:24:37 -0400 Received: from ipx20189.ipxserver.de ([80.190.249.56]:62085 "EHLO ipx20189.ipxserver.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264098AbUJLOXy (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:23:54 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:24:05 +0300 (EAT) From: Zwane Mwaikambo To: Andrew Morton Cc: Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: 2.6.9-rc4-mm1 In-Reply-To: <20041011125507.3d733256.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20041011032502.299dc88d.akpm@osdl.org> <20041011125507.3d733256.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 941 Lines: 19 On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > > allow-x86_64-to-reenable-interrupts-on-contention.patch > > Allow x86_64 to reenable interrupts on contention > > IIRC Andi made skeptical noises about this one. Yes he did (although he did say it would be ok if spinlocks were made out of line to make up for the text size increase in the spinlock assembly) and Ingo said his preempt_enable on contention spinlock changes should have the same effect, however how about the case where we hold a lock above the contended one (so preempt is disabled) and interrupts enabled? At least with this we still process interrupts, plus it can coexist with the preempt friendly spinlock changes. Ingo? - 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/