lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Race condition in 2.4 tasklet handling (cli() broken?)
In article <nKwX.1yy.17@gated-at.bofh.it> you wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:13:15 +0900
> TeJun Huh <tejun@aratech.co.kr> wrote:
>> The race conditions I'm mentioning in this thread are not likely to
>> cause real troubles. The first one does not make any difference on
>> x86, and AFAIK bh isn't used extensively anymore so the second one
>> isn't very relevant either. Only the race condition mentioned in the
>> other thread is of relvance if there is any :-(.

> Are you sure? bh is used in fs subtree to my knowledge ...

Would someone care to spemd a moment to tell me what the spin_lock_bh
does that spin_lock alone does not do? (not just "local_bh_disable",
pleasse :-). I am chasing SMP oopses for filesystems mounted on nbd
which only seem to happen in association with high memory stress (and
possibly "high memory"), and I suspect I am going to be interested by
the answer.

There is no commentary that I can find in the source, beyond the
assembler code in local_bh_enable().

Peter
-
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 13:48    [W:0.045 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site