lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: spinlock assertion macros
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 10:49:42AM -0700, Robert Love wrote:

> > When I came up with the idea[1] I envisioned some linked-lists frobbing,
> > but in more recent times, we can now check the preempt_count for a
> > quick-n-dirty implementation (without the additional info of which locks
> > we hold, lock-taker, etc).
>
> Neat idea. I have seen some other good similar ideas: check
> preempt_count on schedule(), check preempt_count in usleep/msleep
> (Arjan's idea), and check preempt_count in wakeup/context switch/etc.
> code...

Sounds sensible. I'd like to see more self-checking bits added for
preemption. It may be the only way we ever pin down some of the
outstanding "don't make any sense" bugs.

Dave

--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
-
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 13:22    [W:0.180 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site