Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:26:02 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [patch] sched: unlocked context-switches |
| |
David Mosberger wrote: >>>>>>On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:12:45 +1000, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> said: > > > >> Now, Ingo says that the order is reversed with his patch, i.e., > >> switch_mm() happens after switch_to(). That means flush_tlb_mm() > >> may now see a current->active_mm which hasn't really been > >> activated yet. > > Nick> If that did bother you, could you keep track of the actually > Nick> activated mm in your arch code? Or would that involve more > Nick> arch hooks and general ugliness in the scheduler? > > I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of this. We are already tracking > care of ownership, just not atomically. What's the point of putting > another level of (atomic) tracking on top of it. That seems > exceedingly ugly. >
Well, you were worried about it not being atomic. So that would be the point, but I agree it would probably be exceedingly ugly if implemented.
Nick
- 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/
| |