[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Possible race condition in i386 global_irq_lock handling.
thanks TeJun,

just one comment

On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 10:18:40AM +0900, TeJun Huh wrote:
> 3. remove irqs_running() test from synchronize_irq()

I'm not convinced this one is needed. An irq can still run on another
cpu but the cli();sti() may execute while it's here:

irq running synchronize_irq()
-------------- -----------------

irq_enter -> way too late

in short, doing irqs_running() doesn't seem to weaken the semantics of
synchronize_irq() to me.

I think it should be changed this way instead:

void synchronize_irq(void)
if (irqs_running()) {
/* Stupid approach */

to be sure to read the local irq area after the previous code (the
test_and_set_bit of the global_irq_lock of a cli() in your version would
achieve the same implicit smp_mb too, so maybe your only point for doing
cli()/sti() was to execute the smp_mb before the irqs_running?). the
above version is more finegrined and it looks equivalent to yours.

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 13:48    [W:0.092 / U:1.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site