Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

[Ingo Molnar]

* Esben Nielsen <simlo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I will also try to make a lock which introduces the "notion of 
> locallity" (i.e. have the same semantics as a normal spin_lock/mutex) 
> into the code, but in !PREEMPT_RT will turn out to be just 
> local_irq_disable() or preempt_disable(). A lot of the 
> local_irq_disable() should be replaced with that.

yes, this would be the right approach. Note that we already do something 
like that in the per_cpu_locked API, we hide a spinlock there, which 
gets turned off for !PREEMPT_RT. For local_irq_disable() replacements 
we'd need a separate API.

(one thing to watch out for are smp_call_function() handlers. These 
still execute in hardirq context even on PREEMPT_RT. E.g. in buffer.c 
you'll see such code.)

	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/