LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: scheduler: IRQs disabled over context switches
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:43:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040523174359.A21153@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
Hi,
The 2.6.6 scheduler disables IRQs across context switches, which is
bad news for IRQ latency on ARM - to the point where 16550A FIFO
UARTs to overrun.
I'm considering defining prepare_arch_switch & co as follows on ARM,
so that we release IRQs over the call to context_switch().
#define prepare_arch_switch(rq,next) \
do { \
spin_lock(&(next)->switch_lock); \
spin_unlock_irq(&(rq)->lock); \
} while (0)
#define finish_arch_switch(rq,prev) \
spin_unlock(&(prev)->switch_lock)
#define task_running(rq,p) \
((rq)->curr == (p) || spin_is_locked(&(p)->switch_lock))
The question is... why are we keeping IRQs disabled over context_switch()
in the first case? Looking at the code, the only thing which is touched
outside of the two tasks is rq->prev_mm. Since runqueues are CPU-
specific and we're holding at least one spinlock, I think the above
is preempt safe and SMP safe.
However, I'd like to find out from someone who knows this code why
IRQs are disabled by default here.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 PCMCIA - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
2.6 Serial core
next reply other threads:[~2004-05-23 16:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-23 16:43 Russell King [this message]
2004-05-23 18:59 ` Davide Libenzi
2004-05-23 19:38 ` Russell King
2004-05-23 23:04 ` Davide Libenzi
2004-05-23 23:33 ` Russell King
2004-05-24 0:27 ` Davide Libenzi
2004-05-24 8:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-24 6:41 ` Davide Libenzi
2004-05-24 9:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-24 7:10 ` Nick Piggin
2004-05-24 9:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-05-24 17:16 ` Davide Libenzi
2004-05-24 17:46 ` Davide Libenzi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040523174359.A21153@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--subject='Re: scheduler: IRQs disabled over context switches' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).