Message-ID: <1336060050.22523.23.camel@twins>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: make callers check lock contention for
 cond_resched_lock()
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, avi@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com,
        yoshikawa.takuya@oss.ntt.co.jp
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 17:47:30 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20120503220050.e91938418f882b4075526e08@gmail.com>
References: <20120503171244.2debdd80931ccf35f387c5fe@gmail.com>
	 <1336034127.13683.197.camel@twins>
	 <20120503212244.6abbfa8bc3f46a7f7a932bb7@gmail.com>
	 <1336048150.22523.17.camel@twins>
	 <20120503220050.e91938418f882b4075526e08@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 645
Lines: 14

On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 22:00 +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> But as I could not see why spin_needbreak() was differently
> implemented
> depending on CONFIG_PREEMPT, I wanted to understand the meaning. 

Its been that way since before voluntary preemption was introduced, so
its possible Ingo simply missed that spot and nobody noticed until now.

Ingo, do you have any recollections from back when?
--
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/