[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E612EA1.20007@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:29:37 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] xen/pvticketlock: disable interrupts while blocking
On 09/02/2011 07:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 17:55 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
>>
>> We need to make sure interrupts are disabled while we're relying on the
>> contents of the per-cpu lock_waiting values, otherwise an interrupt
>> handler could come in, try to take some other lock, block, and overwrite
>> our values.
> Would this make it illegal to take a spinlock from NMI context?
That would be problematic. But a Xen domain wouldn't be getting NMIs -
at least not standard x86 ones - so that's moot.
> I know that its generally considered bad form, but there's at least one
> spinlock that's only taken from NMI context and thus hasn't got any
> deadlock potential.
Which one?
J
--
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