[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28599.1270219574@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 15:46:14 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"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
Subject: Re: start_kernel(): bug: interrupts were enabled early
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
That depends on the CPU. Some CPUs have quite expensive interrupt disablement
instructions. FRV does for instance; but fortunately, on the FRV, I can use
some of the excessive quantities of conditional registers to pretend that I
disable interrupts, and only actually do so if an interrupt actually happens.
> 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.
In some cases, it's actually the best way. On a UP machine, for instance,
where they reduce to nothing or where your only atomic instruction is an XCHG
equivalent.
David
--
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