[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1002181200050.2811@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:02:14 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/5] xtime_lock: Convert to raw_seqlock
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 18:47 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > xtime_lock needs a raw_spinlock in preempt-rt. Convert it to
> > raw_seqlock and fix up all users.
> >
> s/raw_spinlock/raw_seqlock/ ?
>
> Maybe add an explanation on _why_ -rt needs this for the uninformed
> amongst us.
>
> -rt switches to sleeping spinlocks, but since the vdso is basically
> userspace it cannot schedule, hence we need to keep using actual
> spinlocks (this is also the reason the vdso things must not call into
> lockdep)
No, the read_seq side is not taking the lock. It's just the write side
which is taking the spinlock to serialize against other writers.
xtime_lock is write locked in the timer interrupt context and therefor
cannot take a sleeping spinlock.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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