--
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
How about teaching {up,down}_read_non_owner() to barf on rw_semaphore
in -rt?
Sure thing!
This patch prevents rw_semaphore in PREEMPT_RT from performing
down_read_non_owner and up_read_non_owner. If this must be used, then
either convert to a
--
Passes light testing (five rounds of kernbench) on an x86_64 box.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/hardirq.h |4 +++-
kernel/irq/handle.c |2 ++
kernel/irq/manage.c | 25 +
3 files changed, 30
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 01:22:03PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
--
Passes light testing (five rounds of kernbench) on an x86_64 box.
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
include/linux/hardirq.h |4 +++-
kernel/irq/handle.c |2 ++
--
+void synchronize_all_irqs(void)
+{
+ if (hardirq_preemption)
+ synchronize_rcu(); /* wait for threaded irq handlers. */
+ synchronize_sched();/* wait for hardware irq handlers. */
I don't undrestand the synchronize_sched part above. How does that
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:24:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:02:45 -0400 (EDT) Steven Rostedt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would of course require that synchronize_all_irqs() be in the
RCU code rather than the irq code so that it could access the static
