lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] irqlock patch -G3. [was Re: odd memory corruption in2.5.27?]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Robert and George's patch doesn't seem to be optimal though - if we're
> not going to preempt at spin_unlock() time, we need to preempt at
> local_irq_restore() time. It'll be untrivial to fix all this, but this
> very subtle change to the locking semantics with CONFIG_PREEMPT is quite
> nasty.

this is precisely the reason why we cannot pretend these bugs do not exist
and just work this around in preempt_schedule(). 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.

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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans