On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 00:04 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I don't know. irqs_off_preempt_count() could get used someplace else, > > where you would want to flip the preempt_count() check .. It seems > > sane to combine your patch with mine .. > > > > irqs_off_preempt_count() (!__get_cpu_var(trace_cpu_idle) && > > preempt_count()) > > > > You can't call __get_cpu_var() without the a positive preempt_count(), > > so the check seems backwards regardless of the other factors .. > > yeah. The whole trace_preempt_enter_idle() thing looks a bit suspect. > Why cannot those architectures simply disable/enable preemption and get > the same effect? It's not like we ever want to allow the preemption of > the idle task. They disable interrupts it looks like (i386, and x86_64), around the same area where those trace_preempt_enter_idle calls are placed .. I'm not up on the details of Steve's fix .. There's also a preempt_disable/preempt_enable .. I'm not up on the details of Steve's fix , but stuff looks a little odd .. Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
