LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: scheduler: IRQs disabled over context switches
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 23:41:20 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0405232340070.2676@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040524083715.GA24967@elte.hu>
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > 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().
>
> > 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.
>
> historically x86 context-switching has been pretty fragile when done
> with irqs enabled. (x86 has tons of legacy baggage, segments, etc.) It's
> also slightly faster to do the context-switch in one atomic swoop. On
> x86 we do this portion in like 1 usec so it's not a latency issue.
We used to do it in 2.4. What changed to make it fragile? The threading
(TLS) thing?
- Davide
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-24 6:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-23 16:43 Russell King
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 [this message]
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=Pine.LNX.4.58.0405232340070.2676@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com \
--to=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
--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).