Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:00:59 +0100 (CET) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: timer_bh behaviour incorrect for 2.2.13? |
| |
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> CPU0 CPU1 > ------------- ------------------- > hardirq_endlock() > do_IRQ > timer_interrupt() > mark_bh(TIMER_BH) > do_bottom_half > global_bh_count still 1 (other CPU) > so skip bh processing. > iret (return to userspace) > softirq_endlock (too late!)
this is impossible if we do hardirq_endlock()+softirq_endlock() with local IRQs disabled [like my second quick-patch did] ... No need to add additional expensive spinlocks, bottom-half performance sucks anyway.
-- mingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |