lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: raw_spinlock_t rules
  On 09/19/2010 06:38 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 15:09 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Some time ago, the i8259 emulation code in kvm was changed to use
> > raw_spinlock_t, as it was called in a preempt_disable() and
> > local_irq_disable() context, which doesn't work with preemptible
> > spinlocks used with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT.
> >
> > In Linux 2.6.37, the spinlock will no longer be taken in these contexts,
> > so I'd like to change it to a normal spinlock_t. However, it is still
> > taken in a spin_lock_irq() context.
> >
> > Is it okay to do this change? I figured since spin_lock_irq() is part
> > of the spinlock infrastructure it might to the right thing.
> >
>
> In PREEMPT_RT all interrupts (besides the timer) is converted to a
> thread. The spin_lock_irq() will not disable interrupts in PREEMPT_RT,
> because it is not needed (irqs are threaded and wont cause a deadlock if
> they share the same spin_locks).
>
> Note, spin_locks used by the timer will must be raw_spin_lock(), and
> threaded context must disable interrupts for real before using it.
>

Thanks. So it looks like we can convert that spinlock.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-19 18:47    [W:0.198 / U:0.216 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site