[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110325192601.GC22960@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:26:01 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, tee@....com,
Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation in test_and_set_bit_lock
if possible
* Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> > Could you please try the patch below?
>
> This is very likely not a good idea. I heard some systems can hang
> if you overwrite their PMUs this way and you're unlucky enough :-(
Wrong - in that case all kernels from 2.6.32 to 2.6.38 would already be locking
up. This patch simply restores behavior to essentially what it was before
v2.6.38 - but also adds the warning.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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