[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090218024025.GB7459@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:40:25 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.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, Feb 17, 2009 at 06:15:31PM -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> 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?
You are of course correct! Apologies for my confusion!!!
Thanx, Paul
--
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