Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] xtime_lock vs update_process_times

2008-02-13 Thread Ivan Kokshaysky
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:39:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > move update_process_times() out from under xtime_lock. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --- > arch/alpha/kernel/time.c | 15 --- This indeed fixes deadlock on alpha, so this part

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] xtime_lock vs update_process_times

2008-02-13 Thread Ivan Kokshaysky
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:39:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: move update_process_times() out from under xtime_lock. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- arch/alpha/kernel/time.c | 15 --- This indeed fixes deadlock on alpha, so this part

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] xtime_lock vs update_process_times

2008-02-03 Thread Greg Ungerer
Hi Peter, Peter Zijlstra wrote: move update_process_times() out from under xtime_lock. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- arch/alpha/kernel/time.c | 15 --- arch/arm/common/time-acorn.c |2 -- arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam926x_time.c |

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] xtime_lock vs update_process_times

2008-02-03 Thread Greg Ungerer
Hi Peter, Peter Zijlstra wrote: move update_process_times() out from under xtime_lock. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- arch/alpha/kernel/time.c | 15 --- arch/arm/common/time-acorn.c |2 -- arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam926x_time.c |

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] xtime_lock vs update_process_times

2008-01-28 Thread Russell King
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:20:30PM +, Russell King wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:39:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > move update_process_times() out from under xtime_lock. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Peter, > > Mind if I merge: > > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] xtime_lock vs update_process_times

2008-01-28 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 12:20 +, Russell King wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:39:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > move update_process_times() out from under xtime_lock. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Peter, > > Mind if I merge: > > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] xtime_lock vs update_process_times

2008-01-28 Thread Russell King
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:39:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > move update_process_times() out from under xtime_lock. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Peter, Mind if I merge: > arch/arm/common/time-acorn.c |2 -- > arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam926x_time.c |

[RFC][PATCH 2/2] xtime_lock vs update_process_times

2008-01-28 Thread Peter Zijlstra
move update_process_times() out from under xtime_lock. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- arch/alpha/kernel/time.c | 15 --- arch/arm/common/time-acorn.c |2 -- arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam926x_time.c |3 --- arch/arm/plat-iop/time.c

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] xtime_lock vs update_process_times

2008-01-28 Thread Russell King
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:39:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: move update_process_times() out from under xtime_lock. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter, Mind if I merge: arch/arm/common/time-acorn.c |2 -- arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam926x_time.c |3 ---

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] xtime_lock vs update_process_times

2008-01-28 Thread Russell King
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:20:30PM +, Russell King wrote: On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:39:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: move update_process_times() out from under xtime_lock. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter, Mind if I merge:

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] xtime_lock vs update_process_times

2008-01-28 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 12:20 +, Russell King wrote: On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 11:39:55AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: move update_process_times() out from under xtime_lock. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter, Mind if I merge: arch/arm/common/time-acorn.c