[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E6027E1.1090905@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 08:48:33 +0800
From: Shan Hai <haishan.bai@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
vapier@...too.org, asharma@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/1] lib/atomic64 using raw_spin_lock_irq[save|resotre]
for atomicity
On 09/01/2011 06:11 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Shan Hai wrote:
>>
>>> The spin_lock_irq[save|restore] could break the atomicity of the
>>> atomic64_* operations in the PREEMPT-RT configuration, because
>>> the spin_lock_irq[save|restore] themselves are preemptable in the
>>> PREEMPT-RT, using raw variant of the spin lock could provide the
>>> atomicity that atomic64_* need.
>> Good catch. Queued for the next release.
> Though the changelog is misleading. The reason is not that they are
> preemtible.
>
> The reason for your OOPs is that the sleeping locks are not IRQ
> safe. And your system simply deadlocked due to that.
>
Will correct it in the V3 patch, thanks for the advice.
Cheers
Shan Hai
> 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/
--
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