At 07:56 AM 2/24/2003, brian.auld at adic.com wrote: > However, I noticed that your 'preempt_enable' at the bottom of the > exerp has > been changed from 'preempt_enable' as in the RML patch, to > 'preempt_enable_no_reshed'. What's the reason for this inconsistency?
The preempt_enable_no_reshed avoids a kernel stack overflow seen in certain cases of heavy preemption, where each nested call to reschedule on preemption is interrupted and again requests a preemption. The proper place to check for another preemption is at the top-level interrupt/exception handler, so that we iterate and not recurse. Oops, MontaVista needs to contribute this bug fix back to RML's public patch, I'll put it on my list. -- Todd ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
