Re: [PATCH] break_lock forever broken
From: Nick Piggin
Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 00:08:30 EST
On Sat, 2005-03-12 at 23:20 +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> Since cond_resched_lock's spin_lock clears break_lock, no need to clear it
> itself; and use need_lockbreak there too, preferring optimizer to #ifdefs.
FWIW, this patch solves the problems I had in mind (and so should
solve our copy_page_range livelock I hope). I was sort of inclined
to clear break_lock at lock time too.
As Arjan points out, an unconditional set is probably the way to go
if we've already dirtied the cacheline.
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for doing the patch Hugh.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/