lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: new IRQ scalability changes in 2.3.48
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In practice, there are places that know how spinlocks work, and do things
> with them that would be illegal in the preemptive UP kernel. Nor many, and
> maybe I'm pessimistic, but I would not be in the least surprised if some
> random driver somewhere does something like
>
> spin_lock_irq(&io_request_lock);
> ...
> spin_unlock(&io_request_lock);
> ...
> __sti();
>
> which is entirely legal on SMP. But it would be hugely illegal on threaded
> UP with the spinlock optimizations, because the "unlock" would modify the
> spinlock count, but the optimzied "lock_irq" would not.

At least those things are easily caught with some spinlock debugging code.

-- Jamie

-
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 13:57    [W:0.113 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site