lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.899 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site