> > Since we already use preempt_disable() to force an lwp to stick to a cpu, > > doesn't that solve the problem? If need be, we can enforce nonpreemptable > > lwp's don't migrate.
why would we want to disable preemption in code that merely wants to run on a particular cpu. i dno't understand why using the side effect of preempt_disable() is better than explicitly stating what is wanted. .mrg.
