[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1fx7m1ie8.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:19:59 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc] "fair" rw spinlocks
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> writes:
> ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>
>> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Is it required that all of the processes see the signal before the
>>> corresponding interrupt handler returns? (My guess is "no", which
>>> enables a trick or two, but thought I should ask.)
>>
>> Not that I recall. I think it is just an I/O completed signal.
>
> Wasn't there the sysrq SAK too? That one definitely would need
> to be careful about synchronicity.
SAK from sysrq is done through schedule work, I seem to recall the
locking being impossible otherwise. There is also send_sig_all and a
few others from sysrq. I expect we could legitimately make them
schedule_work as well if needed.
Eric
--
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