![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > There are cases where using spin_lock instead of _irqsave version is a > matter of correctness. For example, the page table lock beeing always > taking without _irq is important to let the IPIs flow. > There's always exceptions! ;-) As Jörn mentioned, you don't just use spin_lock_irqsave just to keep from thinking, which I totally agree, but most of the time I use spin_locks, it is better to not let interrupts flow, and for this reason, I try to keep the places that use spin_locks as short as possible, since I don't want 100ms latencies. -- Steve - 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: 2005-06-30 06:07 [W:3.695 / U:0.740 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||