lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.4.18 Preempt Freezeups
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 02:14:14AM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On March 17, 2002 02:13 am, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:33:04AM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > On March 16, 2002 01:40 am, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Without preempt:
> > > > x = movefrom processor register;
> > // if preemption is on, we can be preempted and restart
> > // on another processor so x will be wrong
> > > > do_something with x
> > > >
> > > > is safe in SMP
> > > > With [preempt] it requires a lock.
> > >
> > > It must be a trick question. Why would it?
> >
> > See comment.
>
> Which processor register were you thinking of? Surely not anything in the
> general register set, and otherwise, it's just another example of per-cpu
> data. It needs to be protected, and the protection is lightweight.


So what didn't you understand? Your (dubious)
assertion that the lock is "lightweight"
has absolutely no bearing on whether a lock is needed or not.





>
> --
> Daniel

--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.059 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site