Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:41:38 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: possible spinlock optimizations |
| |
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> If a spinlock got acquired two times by the same cpu then you'll sti() and > the NMI won't trigger the oops with Manfred's idea applyed.
well, if you read Chuck's suggestion:
[...] > besides, making the IRQ-masked spinlocks interruptible might mean that > we're more likely to interrupt a deadlock via SysRq, right?
(unless i'm grossly misunderstanding Chuck) he is (correctly) suggesting that the sti-change would make the kernel more debuggable, because 'hard lockup' spinlock deadlocks would become at least Sysrq-debuggable. [Chuck please correct me if i'm misinterpreting you]
what i said was that in all these cases the new NMI watchdog already 'debugs' the lockup, so the (quite valid) point is not relevant anymore. ie.: the sti-change does not make the kernel more debuggable.
-- 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/
| |