Re: [rfc] "fair" rw spinlocks

[Eric W. Biederman]

Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) writes:
>
>> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>> Is it required that all of the processes see the signal before the
>>> corresponding interrupt handler returns?  (My guess is "no", which
>>> enables a trick or two, but thought I should ask.)
>>
>> Not that I recall.  I think it is just an I/O completed signal.
>
> Wasn't there the sysrq SAK too? That one definitely would need
> to be careful about synchronicity.

SAK from sysrq is done through schedule work, I seem to recall the
locking being impossible otherwise.  There is also send_sig_all and a
few others from sysrq.  I expect we could legitimately make them
schedule_work as well if needed.

Eric
--
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/