lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: possible spinlock optimizations
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Ingo Molnar wrote:

>well, if you read Chuck's suggestion:
>
>[...]
>> besides, making the IRQ-masked spinlocks interruptible might mean that
>> we're more likely to interrupt a deadlock via SysRq, right?

YES: making the IRQ-masked spinlocks interruptible we are more likely to
interrupt a deadlock via SysRQ _even_ with the NMI applyed.

If my above sentence is wrong please explain me why.

I sure agree that it's not a good thing w.r.t. debugging to avoid
triggering the NMI oops as we won't get the whole stack trace from the
user with the SYSRQ+P way.

Andrea


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.057 / U:0.720 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site