From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1754595AbYFAOSv@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754595AbYFAOSv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:18:51 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753270AbYFAORZ
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:17:25 -0400
Received: from gprs189-60.eurotel.cz ([160.218.189.60]:4374 "EHLO spitz.ucw.cz"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752035AbYFAORF (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:17:05 -0400
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 09:18:18 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>, akpm@osdl.org,
       Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Clark Williams <clark.williams@gmail.com>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
       "Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@uudg.org>,
       Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@novell.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: enable preemption in delay
Message-ID: <20080531071817.GB5405@ucw.cz>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0805242306280.3977@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <alpine.LFD.1.10.0805251406260.3295@apollo.tec.linutronix.de> <20080525180122.GA4247@ucw.cz> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0805280855250.25179@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0805280855250.25179@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed 2008-05-28 09:01:06, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 May 2008, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > +		if (unlikely(cpu != smp_processor_id())) {
> > > +			if (loops <= TSC_MIGRATE_COUNT)
> > > +				break;
> > > +			cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > > +			rdtscl(bclock);
> > > +			loops -= TSC_MIGRATE_COUNT;
> > > +		} else {
> > > +			rdtscl(now);
> > > +			if ((now - bclock) >= loops)
> > > +				break;
> > > +			loops -= (now - bclock);
> > > +			bclock = now;
> >
> > What happens with different cpus running on different frequencies...?
> > Cpufreq?
> 
> It's not even protected with the old code.

Maybe, but it is simple to fix as long as preemption is disabled. When
you enable it, it becomes much harder.

Lets get that fixed.
							Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html