Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:21:25 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] to fix xtime lock for in the RT kernel patch
Message-ID: <20050121082125.GA28267@elte.hu>
References: <41F04573.7070508@mvista.com> <20050121063519.GA19954@elte.hu> <41F0BA56.9000605@mvista.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <41F0BA56.9000605@mvista.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 925
Lines: 30


* George Anzinger <george@mvista.com> wrote:

> > how about the patch below? One of the important benefits of the 
> > threaded timer IRQ is the ability to make xtime_lock a mutex.
> 
> The problem is that that removes the
> 	cur_timer->mark_offset();
> 	do_timer(regs);
> in time. [...]

i'm not sure i understand what you mean. My change does:

| @@ -294,6 +313,7 @@ irqreturn_t timer_interrupt(int irq, voi
|         write_seqlock(&xtime_lock);
|
|         cur_timer->mark_offset();
| +       do_timer(regs);
|
|         do_timer_interrupt(irq, NULL, regs);

so ->mark_offset and do_timer() go together, and happen under
xtime_lock. What problem is there if we do this?

	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/