Re: Race condition in 2.4 tasklet handling (cli() broken?)

[Peter T. Breuer]

In article <nKwX.1yy.17@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:13:15 +0900
> TeJun Huh <tejun@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  The race conditions I'm mentioning in this thread are not likely to
>> cause real troubles.  The first one does not make any difference on
>> x86, and AFAIK bh isn't used extensively anymore so the second one
>> isn't very relevant either.  Only the race condition mentioned in the
>> other thread is of relvance if there is any :-(.

> Are you sure? bh is used in fs subtree to my knowledge ...

Would someone care to spemd a moment to tell me what the spin_lock_bh
does that spin_lock alone does not do?  (not just "local_bh_disable",
pleasse :-).  I am chasing SMP oopses for filesystems mounted on nbd
which only seem to happen in association with high memory stress (and
possibly "high memory"), and I suspect I am going to be interested by
the answer.

There is no commentary that I can find in the source, beyond the
assembler code in local_bh_enable().

Peter
-
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/