Re: possible spinlock optimizations

Ingo Molnar (mingo@chiara.csoma.elte.hu)
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:04:30 +0200 (CEST)


On Tue, 28 Sep 1999, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> >besides, making the IRQ-masked spinlocks interruptible might mean that
> >we're more likely to interrupt a deadlock via SysRq, right?
>
> Yes.

no. at least this point is moot now, the newest 2.3 SMP code runs the NMI
watchdog unconditionally, which works on all SMP boards tested so far
(knock on wood).

-- mingo

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/