[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANN689EMOxriEvsyp=kiA95b3m1gg4fYc0oyMnTtjC1+zunQ7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 21:11:14 -0800
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.stultz@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/6] kernel: implement queue spinlock API
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Right... For spinlocks that -don't- disable irqs, you need to deal with
> the possibility that a CPU gets interrupted while spinning, and the
> interrupt handler also tries to acquire a queued lock. One way to deal
> with this is to have a node per CPUxirq. Of course, if interrupts
> handlers always disable irqs when acquiring a spinlock, then you only
> need CPUx2.
The simple solution would be to do like I proposed in my faster queue
spinlock proposal, have one function for process context lock
acquisitions, another for bh-disabled acquisitions, and just say that
hardirqs can't use the queue spinlocks (I don't expect we have any
locks taken from hardirq context where contention might be an issue ?)
--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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