[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: when spin_lock_irq (as opposed to spin_lock_irqsave) is appropriate?
On Saturday 11 October 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Samstag, 11. Oktober 2008 17:29:01 schrieb Andrey Borzenkov:
> > Logically, one piece of kernel code has no way to know whether another
> > piece of kernel code (or may be hard-/firmware) has disabled some
> > interrupt line. So it looks like spin_lock_irq should not even exist,
> > except may be for very specific cases (where we are sure no other piece
> > of kernel code may run concurrently)?
> >
> > Sorry for stupid question, I an not actually a HW type of person ...
> >
> This has no connection with individual irq lines. It's about being able
> to sleep. Kernel code usually knows whether it can sleep.
> If it knows to be able to sleep it can use spin_lock_irq() which is
> more efficient than spin_lock_irqsave()

Sorry? I can't sleep under spinlock ... *any* spinlock? Or has this changed?

May I be I was not clear with question. spin_lock_irq implies spin_unlock_irq,
which unconditionally enables interrupts. But I have no idea which interrupts
were disabled before spin_lock_irq; so I may accidentally enable too much?

Or what exactly "irq" in spin_(un-)lock_irq means?


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-11 17:57    [W:0.081 / U:1.588 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site