In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 at 17:05:03 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> The question is whether concurrent spin_lock()'s should
> acquire it in more or less "fair" fashinon or one of CPUs can starve any
> arbitrary time while others do reacquire it in a loop.
You neglected to say what CPU type you compiled the kernel for.
If it wasn't Pentium Pro maybe you could patch include/asm-i386/spinlock.h
line 82 (or the same place in x86-64) like this:
___
* (PPro errata 66, 92)
*/
-#if !defined(CONFIG_X86_OOSTORE) && !defined(CONFIG_X86_PPRO_FENCE)
+#if 0
#define __raw_spin_unlock_string \
"movb $1,%0" \
___
The data might not make it out of the CPU write buffer without a locking
instruction doing the update.
__
Chuck
-
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]
