[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1234923331.29823.2.camel@vayu>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:15:31 -0800
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: "paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: smp.c && barriers (Was: [PATCH 1/4] generic-smp: remove single
ipi fallback for smp_call_function_many())
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 07:51 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:26:57PM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > + spin_lock(&q->lock);
> > + list_replace_init(&q->list, &list);
> > + spin_unlock(&q->lock);
>
> OK, I'll bite...
>
> How do we avoid deadlock in the case where a pair of CPUs send to each
> other concurrently?
Sender takes the lock with interrupts-disabled. That should prevent any
deadlock, right?
--
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