On Thursday 15 November 2007 19:17, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 November 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > > All this does is prevent constant and needless checking for
> > > > > "do you want to preempt me now?" "now?" "now?" in "now?" the
> > > > > middle "now?" of "now?" i/o "now?" loops.
> > > >
> > > > Actually that's wrong.
> > >
> > > Certainly it's right for the mainstream kernel. Dropping a
> > > lock (other than a raw spinlock) does that checking; when a
> > > loop needs to acquire then drop such a lock, that's exactly
> > > what's going on.
> >
> > Obviously a raw spinlock is no different from a regular
> > spinlock upstream.
>
> Erm, no. The raw ones don't have the extra logic when
> the lock gets dropped.
If you don't have preemption disabled already, then it is a
bug to use raw spinlocks. If you do have preemption disabled,
then a regular spinlock isn't going to check preemption after
the unlock either.
-
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]
