On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Qiang Huang wrote: > On 2013/2/4 22:58, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >From patches-3.6.11-rt28.patch.gz, your patch x86-highmem-make-it-work.patch > did this work. And you said > "It had been enabled quite some time, but never really worked." > > But I think there is a previous patch mm-rt-kmap-atomic-scheduling.patch did > the job, so I think RT highmem on x86 should have worked. > > Now with your patch, if we use kmap instead of kmap_atomic on RT, do we need > to revert Peter's patch as well? I should have done that, yes. > I haven't tested it, but if Peter's patch did solved the problem, is his way > better than use kmap? Because we can use more highmem virtual address, > although with some switch latency in some small probability scenarios. In theory it's better. Though I ran into some issues with that approach. It's on my todo list to revisit that problem, but for now the kmap way is at least safer. Thanks, tglx -- 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
