* Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Replaced Ingo's address with kernel.org one, > > On Thu, 03 May 2012 17:47:30 +0200 > Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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? > > ping I'm not sure we had a usable spin_is_contended() back then, nor was the !PREEMPT case in my mind really. ( The patch looks ugly though, in 99% of the lines it just does something that cond_resched_lock() itself could do. ) Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
