[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable

Alan Cox wrote:

> So with pre-empt this happens
> driver magic
> disable_irq(dev->irq)
> [large periods of time running other code]
> We get back and we've missed 300 packets, the serial port sharing
> the IRQ has dropped our internet connection completely.

But it shouldn't deadlock as Victor is suggesting.

> There are numerous other examples in the kernel tree where the current code
> knows that there is a small bounded time between two actions in kernel space
> that do not have a sleep. They are not spin locked, and putting spin locks
> everywhere will just trash performance. They are pure hardware interactions
> so you can't automatically detect them.

Why should spin locks trash perfomance, while an expensive disable_irq()

bye, Roman
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.466 / U:2.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site