lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2 1/1] lib/atomic64 using raw_spin_lock_irq[save|resotre] for atomicity
On 09/01/2011 06:11 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 1 Sep 2011, Shan Hai wrote:
>>
>>> The spin_lock_irq[save|restore] could break the atomicity of the
>>> atomic64_* operations in the PREEMPT-RT configuration, because
>>> the spin_lock_irq[save|restore] themselves are preemptable in the
>>> PREEMPT-RT, using raw variant of the spin lock could provide the
>>> atomicity that atomic64_* need.
>> Good catch. Queued for the next release.
> Though the changelog is misleading. The reason is not that they are
> preemtible.
>
> The reason for your OOPs is that the sleeping locks are not IRQ
> safe. And your system simply deadlocked due to that.
>

Will correct it in the V3 patch, thanks for the advice.

Cheers
Shan Hai

> Thanks,
>
> tglx
> --
> 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: 2011-09-02 02:51    [W:0.055 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site