On Friday 25 August 2006 06:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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)
But he didn't actually change the rwlocks, only the plain old spinlocks!
Anyways I applied the patch for now (and cleaned it up in the next patch),
but I could have probably gotten away with not.
Edward, next time please add a Signed-off-by line.
-Andi
-
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]
