Re: [PATCH] local_irq_disable removal

[Mika PenttilÃ]

Ingo Molnar wrote:

> i've done two more things in the latest patches:
>
> - decoupled the 'soft IRQ flag' from the hard IRQ flag. There's
>  basically no need for the hard IRQ state to follow the soft IRQ state. 
>  This makes the hard IRQ disable primitives a bit faster.
>
> - for raw spinlocks i've reintroduced raw_local_irq primitives again.
>  This helped get rid of some grossness in sched.c, and the raw
>  spinlocks disable preemption anyway. It's also safer to just assume
>  that if a raw spinlock is used together with the IRQ flag that the
>  real IRQ flag has to be disabled.
>
> these changes dont really impact scheduling/preemption behavior, they 
> are cleanup/robustization changes.
>
> 	Ingo
> -
> 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/
>
>  
With the soft IRQ flag local_irq_disable() doesn't seem to protect 
against soft interrupts (via SA_NODELAY interrupt-> invoke_softirq()). 
Could this be a problem?

--Mika

-
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/