Re: [patch 00/13] preempt: Make preempt count unconditional

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

 



On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 1:45 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Recently merged code does:
>
>          gfp = preemptible() ? GFP_KERNEL : GFP_ATOMIC;
>
> Looks obviously correct, except for the fact that preemptible() is
> unconditionally false for CONFIF_PREEMPT_COUNT=n, i.e. all allocations in
> that code use GFP_ATOMIC on such kernels.

I don't think this is a good reason to entirely get rid of the no-preempt thing.

The above is just garbage. It's bogus. You can't do it.

Blaming the no-preempt code for this bug is extremely unfair, imho.

And the no-preempt code does help make for much better code generation
for simple spinlocks.

Where is that horribly buggy recent code? It's not in that exact
format, certainly, since 'grep' doesn't find it.

             Linus




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux