Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)

From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 11:49:28 +0100

On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 10:31 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

I still don't think where is the suckage in just not hard-enabling in
the mutex debug code...

If the mutex debugging code is hard-enabling interrupts before
init_IRQ() ever got called, that's just broken. Fixing that can hardly
be called 'suckage'.

--
dwmw2

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
  - From: Ingo Molnar

References:
- 2.6.18 -mm merge plans
  - From: Andrew Morton
- mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
  - From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
  - From: Andrew Morton
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
  - From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
  - From: Andrew Morton
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
  - From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
  - From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
  - From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt

Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] updated reiser4 - reduced cpu usage for writes by writing more than 4k at a time (has implications for generic write code and eventually for the IO layer)
Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] use unlikely() for current_kernel_time() loop
Previous by thread: Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
Next by thread: Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread