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:

> timer interrupt could happen also in the other CPU a picosecond before
> we'll release the global_bh_count lock. So to fix all races a spinlock is
> necessary. [..]

i believe that is completely unnecessery - remember, if an IRQ happens on
another CPU, then _that_ CPU will call do_bottom_halves soon. So the only
thing that has to be ensured: the bh flags manipulated atomically.

-- 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:2.303 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site