Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:33:56 +0200 | From | Suleiman Souhlal <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Fix x86_64 _spin_lock_irqsave() |
| |
Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thursday 24 August 2006 13:04, Suleiman Souhlal wrote: > >>Andi Kleen wrote: >> >>>Edward Falk <efalk@google.com> writes: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Add spin_lock_string_flags and _raw_spin_lock_flags() to >>>>asm-x86_64/spinlock.h so that _spin_lock_irqsave() has the same >>>>semantics on x86_64 as it does on i386 and does *not* have interrupts >>>>disabled while it is waiting for the lock. >>> >>> >>>Did it fix anything for you? >> >>I think this was to work around the fact that some buggy drivers try to >>grab spinlocks without disabling interrupts when they should, which >>would cause deadlocks when trying to rendez-vous every cpu via IPIs. > > > That doesn't help them at all because they could then deadlock later.
If the driver uses spin_lock() when it knows that the hardware won't generate the interrupt that would need to be masked, and spin_lock_irqsave() elsewhere, there shouldn't be any deadlocks unless IPIs are involved.
For example, say a driver uses spin_lock(&driver_lock) in its interrupt handler and spin_lock_irqsave(&driver_lock) elsewhere. Imagine CPU1 is handling a such a interrupt while CPU2 is trying to send a packet (for example).
In a regular situation, CPU1 shouldn't be interrupted by anything needing driver_lock, and so it should be able to complete and let CPU2 acquire the lock.
Now, if CPU3 is trying to do an IPI rendez-vous, it will interrupt CPU1 and try to interrupt CPU2 too. However, since spin_lock_irqsave() spins with interrupts disabled, the system will deadlock.
With this patch, IPI rendez-vous shouldn't cause these problems, since it will let the rendez-vous will be able to complete. Or am I missing something?
-- Suleiman - 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/
| |