Re: [ANNOUNCE] mdb-2.6.27-rc2-ia32-08-07-08.patch

[jmerkey]

> jmerkey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> jmerkey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> rspin locks are for these types of cases -- so if I fault on the same
>>>> processor I took the lock on it just bumps a counter -- yes, it is
>>>> atomic
>>>> and SMP safe to do it this way.
>>> Only if all contexts which take rlocks are not preemptible.
> [...]
>> check mdb-main.c -- I disable preemption before rspin_lock is attempted.
>> Since the only processor which sets the proc number does do inside the
>> spin lock, and the other processors only read it, unless memory is
>> corrupted or the machine is severely broken, its SMP safe to this.
>
> Then it is recommendable that you document the call context requirements
> at the functions.  And you can and IMO should drop the _irq_save and
> _irq_restore from the spinlock accessors in the rlock accessors.  And
> drop the volatile qualifier of the rlock accessor argument while you are
> at it.
>
> I see that you are calling save_flags/ restore_flags in
> mdb-main.c::mdb().  These are marked as deprecated.  Would
> local_irq_save/ local_irq_restore be correct at these places?


You have sharp eyes.  Yes, you are correct.  added to the list of
corrections.

Jeff

> --
> Stefan Richter
> -=====-==--- =--- --===
> http://arcgraph.de/sr/
>


--
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/