From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: [patch 1/6] preempt_lazy: remove redundant test_thread_flag() call Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 07:33:51 +0200 Message-ID: <1399354431.5192.67.camel@marge.simpson.net> References: <1399020080.5233.96.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1399029166.5233.125.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20140505223728.5a07e6e1@gandalf.local.home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: RT , Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Thomas Gleixner To: Steven Rostedt Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com ([74.125.83.44]:33055 "EHLO mail-ee0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751224AbaEFFeF (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 May 2014 01:34:05 -0400 Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id c41so5912974eek.17 for ; Mon, 05 May 2014 22:34:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140505223728.5a07e6e1@gandalf.local.home> Sender: linux-rt-users-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 22:37 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 02 May 2014 13:12:46 +0200 > Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > __preempt_count_dec_and_test() already does it. > > Already does what? :-) Poo.. yeah that. > Hmm, do all archs check? Perhaps we need to also update > include/asm-generic/preempt.h? Per cpu preempt_count is x86, and tif_need_resched() handles laziness, so all should be well. Did I just manage to overlook the obvious for the second time? -Mike