From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 01:23:58 +0200 (CEST)
> I knew that I'd get it wrong :) So is adding another nop the right
> thing to do ?
>
> bne,pn %xcc, kern_fpucheck
> - sethi %hi(PREEMPT_ACTIVE), %l6
> - s
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, David Miller wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner
> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:53:08 -
>
> > bne,pn %xcc, kern_fpucheck
> > -sethi %hi(PREEMPT_ACTIVE), %l6
> > - stw %l6, [%g6 + TI_PRE_COUNT]
From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:53:08 -
> bne,pn %xcc, kern_fpucheck
> - sethi %hi(PREEMPT_ACTIVE), %l6
> - stw %l6, [%g6 + TI_PRE_COUNT]
> - callschedu
The low level preemption code fiddles with the PREEMPT_ACTIVE bit for
no reason and calls schedule() with interrupts disabled, which is
wrong to begin with. Remove the PREEMPT_ACTIVE fiddling and call the
proper schedule_preempt_irq() function.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: "David S. Miller"
4 matches
Mail list logo