Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:04:30 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: possible spinlock optimizations |
| |
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >besides, making the IRQ-masked spinlocks interruptible might mean that > >we're more likely to interrupt a deadlock via SysRq, right? > > Yes.
no. at least this point is moot now, the newest 2.3 SMP code runs the NMI watchdog unconditionally, which works on all SMP boards tested so far (knock on wood).
-- mingo
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |