[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b115cb5f0608292231r1a3c47c8r8980b32e838ff964@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:01:43 +0530
From: "Rajat Jain" <rajat.noida.india@...il.com>
To: "Rik van Riel" <riel@...riel.com>
Cc: "Rick Brown" <rick.brown.3@...il.com>, kernelnewbies@...linux.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Spinlock query
On 8/30/06, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote:
> Rick Brown wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In my driver (Process context), I have written the following code:
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > spin_lock(lock)
> > ...
> > //Critical section to manipulate driver data
>
> ... interrupt hits here
> interrupt handler tries to grab the spinlock, which is already taken
> *BOOM*
>
> > spin_u lock(lock)
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
The interrupt handler TRIES to grab the spinlock, which is already
taken. Why will it "BOOM"? Wouldn't the interrupt handler busy wait,
waiting for the lock?
Am I missing something here?
Rajat
> > I have written similar code in my interrupt handler (Interrupt
> > context). The driver data is not accessed from anywhere else. Is my
> > code safe from any potential concurrency issues? Is there a need to
> > use spin_lock_irqsave()? In both the places?
>
> You need to use spin_lock_irqsave() from process context.
> From the interrupt handler itself it doesn't hurt, but it
> shouldn't matter much since interrupt handlers should not
> get preempted.
-
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