On 01/22/2016 12:58 PM, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > On 01/18/2016 10:18 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: >> * Mike Galbraith | 2016-01-18 10:08:23 [+0100]: >> >>> --- a/arch/x86/entry/common.c >>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/common.c >>> @@ -220,14 +220,14 @@ long syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs >>> >>> #define EXIT_TO_USERMODE_LOOP_FLAGS \ >>> (_TIF_SIGPENDING | _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME | _TIF_UPROBE | \ >>> - _TIF_NEED_RESCHED | _TIF_USER_RETURN_NOTIFY) >>> + _TIF_NEED_RESCHED_MASK | _TIF_USER_RETURN_NOTIFY) >> >> If I read this right, the loop where this define is used >> _TIF_ALLWORK_MASK in v4.1 of which _TIF_NEED_RESCHED_MASK was part of. >> Adding this will reassmeble the old behaviour. >> … > > Just a question (sorry if dumb). ARM has _TIF_WORK_MASK defined: > #define _TIF_WORK_MASK (_TIF_NEED_RESCHED | _TIF_SIGPENDING | \ > _TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME | _TIF_UPROBE) > > which is used to calculate loop exit condition in > do_work_pending() (arch/arm/kernel/signal.c). > > Should _TIF_WORK_MASK also contain _TIF_NEED_RESCHED_LAZY? Yes, and arm64 lacks the same bits. Sebastian -- 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
