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


  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).