Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 28 Sep 1999 23:53:53 +0200 (CEST) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |