David Young <[email protected]> wrote: > I take that last sentence to mean that a low-priority cross call *may* > preempt a thread on the remote CPU. Is that correct? > > In other words, can we rephrase that, "A low-priority cross call may > preempt a thread running on the remote CPU unless preemption is disabled > on that CPU."
Of course. This is not specific to xcall(9), though. Any thread *may* preempt a currently running thread, if it has a higher priority, kernel preemption is not disabled and the port has kernel preemption support. -- Mindaugas
