[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081012191211.0327110f@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 19:12:11 -0400
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@...l.ru>
Cc: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: when spin_lock_irq (as opposed to spin_lock_irqsave) is
appropriate?
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:48:00 +0400
Andrey Borzenkov <arvidjaar@...l.ru> wrote:
> On Saturday 11 October 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> [... very useful explanation omitted ...]
> > Does this answer your question?
> >
>
> As Oliver pointed out, part of confusion wa my asumption that _irqsave
> verion saves actual interrupt mask. It actually does not.
>
> This leaves me with a question - how can I know whether interrupts may
> (not) be disabled at particular point?
the _irq versions mask the interrupts in the *cpu*!
Not in the hw.
All CPUs have a flag that says "don't give me interrupts right now
please", and the spin_lock_irq(save) functions work on that flag.
And they block all interrupts (except NMI's, which are very special)
> In particular, is it safe to
> assume that any place marked at "code may sleep" has interrupts
> enabled?
yes.
That's a good rule of thumb ;-)
Anything else is a lot of "depends"
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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