Re: [patch] sched: unlocked context-switches

[Nick Piggin]

David Mosberger wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:12:45 +1000, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>
>
>   >> Now, Ingo says that the order is reversed with his patch, i.e.,
>   >> switch_mm() happens after switch_to().  That means flush_tlb_mm()
>   >> may now see a current->active_mm which hasn't really been
>   >> activated yet.
>
>   Nick> If that did bother you, could you keep track of the actually
>   Nick> activated mm in your arch code? Or would that involve more
>   Nick> arch hooks and general ugliness in the scheduler?
>
> I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of this.  We are already tracking
> care of ownership, just not atomically.  What's the point of putting
> another level of (atomic) tracking on top of it.  That seems
> exceedingly ugly.

Well, you were worried about it not being atomic. So that would be
the point, but I agree it would probably be exceedingly ugly if
implemented.

Nick

-
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/