Re: [PATCH] PREEMPT_RT_FULL Build error fix
From: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Date: 2011-09-06 09:25:50
Also in:
lkml
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Thomas Gleixner [off-list ref] wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, John Kacur wrote:quoted
Problem: make O=/bld/3.0.3-rt11/ kernel/fork.o /home/jkacur/jk-2.6/kernel/fork.c:91: error: section of ‘name’ conflicts with previous declaration __cacheline_aligned is already part of the definition of DEFINE_RWLOCK for -rt However it is not always used for the tasklist_lock in non-rt, so it can't simply be added to the definition of DEFINE_RWLOCK in non-rt, so I modified the definition in fork.c-ENOPARSE The real question is whether RWLOCKS should be cacheline aligned in general or the RT addon is just overkill. Slapping an ifdef around does not answer that.
Right, this was just a "put out a build-break fire" for now patch and not a good long term patch. I noticed that of all the mainline DEFINE_RWLOCKs that only the tasklist_lock is cache aligned. I'm wondering if there is a reason for that, or just more of a historical accident. Regarding cache aligning the rwlocks in -rt, I also can't find the historical reason for it, do you remember if it was for latency performance, or did we have a atomicity issue on some architectures when we didn't cache align it? Thanks -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html