Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 00:04:44 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: v2.6.21-rt2
Message-ID: <20070516220444.GA27081@elte.hu>
References: <20070516180447.GA17922@elte.hu> <1179348842.20519.20.camel@imap.mvista.com> <20070516210104.GA17240@elte.hu> <1179350448.20519.25.camel@imap.mvista.com> <20070516213259.GC19850@elte.hu> <1179352036.20519.36.camel@imap.mvista.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1179352036.20519.36.camel@imap.mvista.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1177
Lines: 29


* Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:

> I don't know. irqs_off_preempt_count() could get used someplace else, 
> where you would want to flip the preempt_count() check .. It seems 
> sane to combine your patch with mine ..
> 
> irqs_off_preempt_count() (!__get_cpu_var(trace_cpu_idle) && 
> preempt_count())
> 
> You can't call __get_cpu_var() without the a positive preempt_count(), 
> so the check seems backwards regardless of the other factors ..

yeah. The whole trace_preempt_enter_idle() thing looks a bit suspect. 
Why cannot those architectures simply disable/enable preemption and get 
the same effect? It's not like we ever want to allow the preemption of 
the idle task.

and once that is solved, irqs_off_preempt_count() can again include the 
hardirq and preempt count check only and doesnt have to check the 
idle_cpu flag. This would make the whole thing simpler and would avoid 
silly bugs like 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/