On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 09:44 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > >
> > > but it sets irqs_disabled() IIRC.
> >
> > only spin_lock_irq() and co do.
> > not the simple spin_lock()
> >
>
> It may be dangerous to use spin_lock with interrupts enabled, since you
> have to make sure that no interrupt ever grabs that lock. Although I do
> recall seeing a few locks like this. But even so, you can transfer the
> latency of the interrupts going off while holding that lock to another CPU
> which IMHO is a bad thing. Also a simple spin_lock would disable
> preemption with CONFIG_PREEMPT set and that would make in_atomic fail.
> But to implement a kmalloc_auto you would always need to have a preempt
> count.
There are cases where using spin_lock instead of _irqsave version is a
matter of correctness. For example, the page table lock beeing always
taking without _irq is important to let the IPIs flow.
Ben.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
