Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> Code that relies on
>> cli/sti for atomicity should be pretty rare and limited, there's 1 known
>> case so far where it leads to bugs.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 01:00:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Are you implying that all code which does spin_unlock() inside
> local_irq_disable() needs to be converted to use _raw_spin_unlock()?
> If so then, umm, ugh. I hope that the debug check is working
> for CONFIG_PREEMPT=n.
> BTW, what is the situation with spin_unlock_irq[restore]()? Seems
> that these will schedule inside local_irq_disable() quite a lot?
Since we're on the subject of preempt_schedule() being done at
inappropriate times, I'm seeing it being called and panicking the
machine before the per-cpu GDT, IDT, TSS, and LDT are loaded in
cpu_init() and suspect that may be a wee bit too early to be sane.
Cheers,
Bill
-
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 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:15 EST