On 24 Aug 2006 08:45:11 +0200
Andi Kleen <[email protected]> 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?
>
It's the rendezvous-via-IPI problem. Suppose we want to capture all CPUs
in an IPI handler (TSC sync, for example).
- CPUa holds read_lock(&tasklist_lock)
- CPUb is spinning in write_lock_irq(&taslist_lock)
- CPUa enters its IPI handler and spins
- CPUb never takes the IPI and we're dead.
Re-enabling interrupts while we spin will prevent that. But I suspect that
if we ever want to implement IPI rendezvous (and cannot use the
stop_machine_run() thing) then we might still have problems. A valid
optimisation (which we use in some places) is:
local_irq_save(flags);
<stuff>
write_lock(lock);
-
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]
