Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: interrupt checks for spinlocks | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 03 Nov 2002 22:01:24 -0500 |
| |
On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 20:42, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> I'll go figure out why before posting a follow-up. This is not doing > what I wanted it to because the only one I originally wanted was (1), > having to do with interrupt-time recursion on rwlocks and writer > starvation caused by it.
You can do #1, but you need to figure out if your interrupt is the only interrupt using the lock or not (possibly hard).
In other words, a lock unique to your interrupt handler does not need to disable interrupts (since only that handler can grab the lock and it is disabled).
If other handlers can grab the lock, interrupts need to be disabled.
So a test of irqs_disabled() would show a false-positive in the first case. No easy way to tell..
Robert Love
- 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/
| |