[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1156425718.3014.64.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:21:58 +0200
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@...eBSD.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Edward Falk <efalk@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 14:33 +0200, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thursday 24 August 2006 13:04, Suleiman Souhlal wrote:
> >
> >>Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>
> >>>Edward Falk <efalk@...gle.com> 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.
> >
> >
> > That doesn't help them at all because they could then deadlock later.
>
> If the driver uses spin_lock() when it knows that the hardware won't
> generate the interrupt that would need to be masked, and
> spin_lock_irqsave() elsewhere, there shouldn't be any deadlocks unless
> IPIs are involved.
this still is bad practice and lockdep will also scream about it
Can you point at ANY place that does this?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists