Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch] Real-Time Preemption, -RT-2.6.10-rc2-mm3-V0.7.32-6 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Date | Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:36:02 -0500 |
| |
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 10:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > Ingo really scares me with all the removing of local_irq_disables in > > the rt mode. I'm not sure exactly what is going on there, and why they > > can, or should be removed. Ingo? > > it is done so that the SLAB code can be fully preempted too. The SLAB > code is of central importance to the -RT project, if it's not fully > preemptible then that has a ripple effect on other subsystems (timer, > signal code, file handling, etc.). > > So while making it fully preemptible was quite challenging (==dangerous, > scary), i couldnt just keep the SLAB using raw spinlocks, due to the > locking dependencies. (nor did i have any true inner desire to keep it > non-preemptible - the point of PREEMPT_RT is to have everything > preemptible. I want to see how much preemption the Linux kernel can take > =B-) It has held up surprisingly well i have to say.)
<snip>
> > Ingo
Ingo,
Thanks for the write up. It really clears things up for me. Now I understand your approach, not only for slabs, but other areas of the kernel. Once again, thanks for the explanation.
-- Steve
- 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/
| |