[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200608250821.44620.ak@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:21:44 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: Edward Falk <efalk@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave()
On Friday 25 August 2006 06:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2006 08:45:11 +0200
> Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> 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?
> >
>
> 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 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