[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805071002330.3110@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 10:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: Spinlocks waiting with interrupts disabled / preempt disabled.
On Wed, 7 May 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > + return flags;
> > + local_irq_restore(flags);
> > + while (!write_can_lock(lock))
> > + cpu_relax();
> > + goto retry;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(_write_lock_irqsave);
>
> hm, this is done on a too high level and will turn off some debugging
> code. I.e. if we dont just loop long but truly deadlock here we wont
> call lib/spinlock_debug.c's _raw_write_lock() code that does some sanity
> checks in the debug case.
Right. I guessed that given the gazillion helper functions and wanted to
know how to address this in the right way.
> so how about doing this on a deeper level and adding a new
> __raw_write_lock_flags() primitive that would look at the flags value
> and could enable interrupts in the lowlevel code?
Ok will look at that. Note that this is not unique to _write_lock_irqsave
but all other locks that disable interrupts seem to have the same issue.
We are likely going to duplicate a lot of functions.
--
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