Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

[Ingo Molnar]

* Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-06-11 at 22:03 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Esben Nielsen <simlo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > > the jury is still out on the accuracy of those numbers. The test had 
> > > > RT_DEADLOCK_DETECT (and other -RT debugging features) turned on, which 
> > > > mostly work with interrupts disabled. The other question is how were 
> > > > interrupt response times measured.
> > > > 
> > > You would accept a patch where I made this stuff optional?
> > 
> > I'm not sure why. The soft-flag based local_irq_disable() should in fact 
> > be a tiny bit faster than the cli based approach, on a fair number of 
> > CPUs. But it should definitely not be slower in any measurable way.
> > 
> 
> Is there any such SMP concept as a local_preempt_disable()  ?

preempt_disable() is always 'local'. (has effect only on the current 
CPU)

	Ingo
-
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/