[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [12]   [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 Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:48:00 +0400
Andrey Borzenkov <> wrote:

> On Saturday 11 October 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> [... very useful explanation omitted ...]
> > Does this answer your question?
> >
> As Oliver pointed out, part of confusion wa my asumption that _irqsave
> verion saves actual interrupt mask. It actually does not.
> This leaves me with a question - how can I know whether interrupts may
> (not) be disabled at particular point?

the _irq versions mask the interrupts in the *cpu*!
Not in the hw.
All CPUs have a flag that says "don't give me interrupts right now
please", and the spin_lock_irq(save) functions work on that flag.
And they block all interrupts (except NMI's, which are very special)

> In particular, is it safe to
> assume that any place marked at "code may sleep" has interrupts
> enabled?

That's a good rule of thumb ;-)
Anything else is a lot of "depends"

Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-10-13 01:15    [W:0.038 / U:9.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site