"David S. Miller" wrote:
>
> Keith Owens writes:
> > Or have I missed something?
>
> Nope, it is a fundamental problem with such kernel pre-emption
> schemes. As a result, it would also break our big-reader locks
> (see include/linux/brlock.h).
He has this one covered. The patch puts preemption locks around
read_locks.
By the by, if a preemption lock is all that is needed the patch defines
it and it is rather fast (an inc going in and a dec & test comming
out). A lot faster than a spin lock with its "LOCK" access. A preempt
lock does not need to be "LOCK"ed because the only contender is the same
cpu.
George
>
> Basically, anything which uses smp_processor_id() would need to
> be holding some lock so as to not get pre-empted.
>
> Later,
> David S. Miller
> davem@redhat.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 21:00:15 EST