Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:54:47 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] irqlock patch -G3. [was Re: odd memory corruptionin2.5.27?] |
| |
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Code that relies on > > cli/sti for atomicity should be pretty rare and limited, there's 1 known > > case so far where it leads to bugs. > > Are you implying that all code which does spin_unlock() inside > local_irq_disable() needs to be converted to use _raw_spin_unlock()? If > so then, umm, ugh. I hope that the debug check is working for > CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
yes, it works for CONFIG_PREEMT=n as well.
> BTW, what is the situation with spin_unlock_irq[restore]()? Seems that > these will schedule inside local_irq_disable() quite a lot?
i changed the order in my patch - and there's another valid reason for it: to slightly reduce the amount of time spent with irqs disabled.
Ingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |