Re: Arches that don't support PREEMPT

[Anton Ivanov]

On 19/09/2023 17:22, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "anton ivanov" <anton.ivanov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > It's been a while. I remember that I dropped it at the time, but do not remember
> > the full details.
> >
> > There was some stuff related to FP state and a few other issues I ran into while
> > rewriting the interrupt controller. Some of it may be resolved by now as we are
> > using host cpu flags, etc.
>
> I remember also having a hacky but working version almost 10 years ago.
> It was horrible slow because of the extra scheduler rounds.
> But yes, if PREEMPT will be a must-have feature we'll have to try again.

We will need proper fpu primitives for starters that's for sure. fpu_star/end in UML are presently NOOP.

Some of the default spinlocks and other stuff which we pick up from generic may need to change as well.

This is off the top of my head and something which we can fix straight away. I will send some patches to the mailing list tomorrow or on Thu.

A.

> Thanks,
> //richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-um mailing list
> linux-um@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um

--
Anton R. Ivanov
Cambridgegreys Limited. Registered in England. Company Number 10273661
https://www.cambridgegreys.com/