[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004011310210.3707@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 13:12:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Rabin Vincent <rabin@....in>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, penberg@...helsinki.fi,
cl@...ux-foundation.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > So making the slow-path do the spin_[un]lock_irq{save,restore}() versions
> > sounds like the right thing. It won't be a performance issue: it _is_ the
> > slow-path, and we're already doing the expensive part (the spinlock itself
> > and the irq thing).
>
> It's actually on the fastpath for lib/rwsem-spinlock.c.
Ahh, yes. In this case, that doesn't likely change anything. The
save/restore versions of the irq-safe locks shouldn't be appreciably more
expensive than the non-saving ones. And architectures that really care
should have done their own per-arch optimized version anyway.
Maybe we should even document that - so that nobody else makes the mistake
x86-64 did of thinking that the "generic spinlock" version of the rwsem's
is anything but a hacky and bad fallback case.
Linus
--
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