Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:34:09 +0200 (CEST) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] irqlock patch -G3. [was Re: odd memory corruption in2.5.27?] |
| |
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Robert and George's patch doesn't seem to be optimal though - if we're > not going to preempt at spin_unlock() time, we need to preempt at > local_irq_restore() time. It'll be untrivial to fix all this, but this > very subtle change to the locking semantics with CONFIG_PREEMPT is quite > nasty.
this is precisely the reason why we cannot pretend these bugs do not exist and just work this around in preempt_schedule(). Code that relies on cli/sti for atomicity should be pretty rare and limited, there's 1 known case so far where it leads to bugs.
Ingo
- 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/
| |