Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:06:33 +0200 | From | "Peter T. Breuer" <> | Subject | Re: Race condition in 2.4 tasklet handling (cli() broken?) |
| |
In article <nKwX.1yy.17@gated-at.bofh.it> you wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:13:15 +0900 > TeJun Huh <tejun@aratech.co.kr> wrote: >> The race conditions I'm mentioning in this thread are not likely to >> cause real troubles. The first one does not make any difference on >> x86, and AFAIK bh isn't used extensively anymore so the second one >> isn't very relevant either. Only the race condition mentioned in the >> other thread is of relvance if there is any :-(.
> Are you sure? bh is used in fs subtree to my knowledge ...
Would someone care to spemd a moment to tell me what the spin_lock_bh does that spin_lock alone does not do? (not just "local_bh_disable", pleasse :-). I am chasing SMP oopses for filesystems mounted on nbd which only seem to happen in association with high memory stress (and possibly "high memory"), and I suspect I am going to be interested by the answer.
There is no commentary that I can find in the source, beyond the assembler code in local_bh_enable().
Peter - 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/
| |