Re: spin_lock_irq vs. spin_lock_irqsave.

From: Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de)
Date: Mon Jun 26 2000 - 04:22:18 EST


On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 10:20:47AM +0100, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >
> > The _bh variants disable bottom half delivery [softirqs, tasklets and the
> > old bottom halfs such as timers]. Within your bh handler you can use
> > spin_lock() instead of spin_lock_bh().
>
> it would appear that _bh variants disable bottom half delivery on the same
> cpu - can't they be delivered on a different one? Or is the name
> "local_bh_disable()" deceptive and really means "global_bh_disable()"?

They only disable on the local CPU. The other CPUs should be covered by
the spinlock.

-Andi

-
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/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 26 2000 - 21:00:08 EST