[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C963DAC.4040604@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 18:43:24 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: raw_spinlock_t rules
On 09/19/2010 06:38 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 15:09 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Some time ago, the i8259 emulation code in kvm was changed to use
> > raw_spinlock_t, as it was called in a preempt_disable() and
> > local_irq_disable() context, which doesn't work with preemptible
> > spinlocks used with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT.
> >
> > In Linux 2.6.37, the spinlock will no longer be taken in these contexts,
> > so I'd like to change it to a normal spinlock_t. However, it is still
> > taken in a spin_lock_irq() context.
> >
> > Is it okay to do this change? I figured since spin_lock_irq() is part
> > of the spinlock infrastructure it might to the right thing.
> >
>
> In PREEMPT_RT all interrupts (besides the timer) is converted to a
> thread. The spin_lock_irq() will not disable interrupts in PREEMPT_RT,
> because it is not needed (irqs are threaded and wont cause a deadlock if
> they share the same spin_locks).
>
> Note, spin_locks used by the timer will must be raw_spin_lock(), and
> threaded context must disable interrupts for real before using it.
>
Thanks. So it looks like we can convert that spinlock.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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