Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()

Andi Kleen wrote:

Edward Falk <[email protected]> writes:

Add spin_lock_string_flags and _raw_spin_lock_flags() to
asm-x86_64/spinlock.h so that _spin_lock_irqsave() has the same
semantics on x86_64 as it does on i386 and does *not* have interrupts
disabled while it is waiting for the lock.

Did it fix anything for you?

I think this was to work around the fact that some buggy drivers try to grab spinlocks without disabling interrupts when they should, which would cause deadlocks when trying to rendez-vous every cpu via IPIs.

It's a bad idea to spin with interrupts disabled when they could very well be enabled, anyway.

-- Suleiman
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()
    • From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()
    • From: Edward Falk <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/4] Revert Changes to kernel/workqueue.c
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/7] SLIM main patch
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]