Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 02 Sep 2011 08:48:33 +0800 | From | Shan Hai <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |