Re: [patch]2.4.0-test6 "spinlock" preemption patch

From: Ralf Baechle (ralf@conectiva.com.br)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2000 - 05:38:15 EST

Next message: Ralf Baechle: "Re: [ANNOUNCE] Darkstar Development Project"
Previous message: Jonathan Earle: "Kernel oops on 2.4.0-test4 and test5 (and later): kmem_cache_grow"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: [patch]2.4.0-test6 "spinlock" preemption patch"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 11:37:46AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:

> That code example can in theory deadlock without any patches if the CPU's
> end up locked in sync with each other and the same one always wins the test.
> It isnt likely on current x86 but other processors are a different story

If seen systems (not processors!) that can detect such a case let one
process randomly win over the others.

Ralf

--
"Embrace, Enhance, Eliminate" - it worked for the pope, it'll work for Bill.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Ralf Baechle: "Re: [ANNOUNCE] Darkstar Development Project"
Previous message: Jonathan Earle: "Kernel oops on 2.4.0-test4 and test5 (and later): kmem_cache_grow"
In reply to: Alan Cox: "Re: [patch]2.4.0-test6 "spinlock" preemption patch"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:22 EST