Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 19/09/2023 17:22, Richard Weinberger wrote:
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
Von: "anton ivanov" <anton.ivanov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
It's been a while. I remember that I dropped it at the time, but do not remember
the full details.

There was some stuff related to FP state and a few other issues I ran into while
rewriting the interrupt controller. Some of it may be resolved by now as we are
using host cpu flags, etc.

I remember also having a hacky but working version almost 10 years ago.
It was horrible slow because of the extra scheduler rounds.
But yes, if PREEMPT will be a must-have feature we'll have to try again.

We will need proper fpu primitives for starters that's for sure. fpu_star/end in UML are presently NOOP.

Some of the default spinlocks and other stuff which we pick up from generic may need to change as well.

This is off the top of my head and something which we can fix straight away. I will send some patches to the mailing list tomorrow or on Thu.

A.


Thanks,
//richard

_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um

--
Anton R. Ivanov
Cambridgegreys Limited. Registered in England. Company Number 10273661
https://www.cambridgegreys.com/



[Index of Archives]     [Video for Linux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux S/390]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux