![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Friday 25 August 2006 06:38, Andrew Morton wrote: > On 24 Aug 2006 08:45:11 +0200 > Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> 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? > > > > It's the rendezvous-via-IPI problem. Suppose we want to capture all CPUs > in an IPI handler (TSC sync, for example). > > - CPUa holds read_lock(&tasklist_lock) > - CPUb is spinning in write_lock_irq(&taslist_lock) But he didn't actually change the rwlocks, only the plain old spinlocks! Anyways I applied the patch for now (and cleaned it up in the next patch), but I could have probably gotten away with not. Edward, next time please add a Signed-off-by line. -Andi - 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: 2006-08-25 08:25 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||