On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > Right... For spinlocks that -don't- disable irqs, you need to deal with > the possibility that a CPU gets interrupted while spinning, and the > interrupt handler also tries to acquire a queued lock. One way to deal > with this is to have a node per CPUxirq. Of course, if interrupts > handlers always disable irqs when acquiring a spinlock, then you only > need CPUx2.
The simple solution would be to do like I proposed in my faster queue spinlock proposal, have one function for process context lock acquisitions, another for bh-disabled acquisitions, and just say that hardirqs can't use the queue spinlocks (I don't expect we have any locks taken from hardirq context where contention might be an issue ?) -- Michel "Walken" Lespinasse A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
