Ok, will send a patch to back out the change that Linus already
accepted.
- kumar
On Jan 26, 2005, at 7:44 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 23:45 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Will these changes cause us to back out the patch already made to
> arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c for
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 23:45 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Will these changes cause us to back out the patch already made to
> arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c for systems that did not support powersavings?
Did it already make it upstream ? Ingo's fix should make our workarounds
unnecessary indeed...
Ben.
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 23:45 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
Will these changes cause us to back out the patch already made to
arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c for systems that did not support powersavings?
Did it already make it upstream ? Ingo's fix should make our workarounds
unnecessary indeed...
Ben.
-
Ok, will send a patch to back out the change that Linus already
accepted.
- kumar
On Jan 26, 2005, at 7:44 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 23:45 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
Will these changes cause us to back out the patch already made to
arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c for
Will these changes cause us to back out the patch already made to
arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c for systems that did not support powersavings?
- kumar
On Jan 25, 2005, at 5:49 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 10:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> it can be bad for the idle task to
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 10:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> it can be bad for the idle task to hold the BKL and to have preemption
> enabled - in such a situation the scheduler will get confused if an
> interrupt triggers a forced preemption in that small window. But it's
> not necessary to keep IRQs
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Ingo !
>
> Could you explain me precisely what is the race you are fixing by
> adding local_irq_disable() to rest_init() ?
it can be bad for the idle task to hold the BKL and to have preemption
enabled - in such a situation the scheduler
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ingo !
Could you explain me precisely what is the race you are fixing by
adding local_irq_disable() to rest_init() ?
it can be bad for the idle task to hold the BKL and to have preemption
enabled - in such a situation the scheduler will
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 10:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
it can be bad for the idle task to hold the BKL and to have preemption
enabled - in such a situation the scheduler will get confused if an
interrupt triggers a forced preemption in that small window. But it's
not necessary to keep IRQs
Will these changes cause us to back out the patch already made to
arch/ppc/kernel/idle.c for systems that did not support powersavings?
- kumar
On Jan 25, 2005, at 5:49 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 10:01 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
it can be bad for the idle task to
Hi Ingo !
Could you explain me precisely what is the race you are fixing by adding
local_irq_disable() to rest_init() ?
This patch is causing lockups on boot on various ppc machines. I think
i've found at least one possible reason for that in the ppc cpu_idle()
code, which may not re-enable
Hi Ingo !
Could you explain me precisely what is the race you are fixing by adding
local_irq_disable() to rest_init() ?
This patch is causing lockups on boot on various ppc machines. I think
i've found at least one possible reason for that in the ppc cpu_idle()
code, which may not re-enable
12 matches
Mail list logo
