Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 04 Dec 2001 23:41:00 -0800 | From | george anzinger <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] improve spinlock debugging |
| |
Roman Zippel wrote: > > Hi, > > Robert Love wrote: > > > Right, I meant just the spin_lock_irq case, which would be fine except > > for the case where: > > > > spin_lock_irq > > spin_unlock > > restore_irq > > > > to solve this, we need a spin_unlock_irq_on macro that didn't touch the > > preemption count. > > Has someone a real example of something like this? > I'd suspect someone is trying a (questionable) micro optimization or is > holding the lock for too long anyway. Instead of adding more macros, > maybe it's better to look closely whether something needs fixing. > Oh it is in there somewhere. I tried to do the indicated thing for preemption and ran aground on it. Grep drivers for spin_lock_irq (or irq save). I don't remember which, but there is more than one.
-- George george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Real time sched: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/ - 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/
| |