Re: new IRQ scalability changes in 2.3.48

From: Andrea Arcangeli (andrea@suse.de)
Date: Mon Mar 13 2000 - 18:08:42 EST


On Mon, 13 Mar 2000, Jamie Lokier wrote:

>Note: In many cases, spinlock_irqsave doesn't need to do the
>spinlock_depth thing on UP. [..]

It doesn't need that in SMP either.

>[..] However, not all cases: the code in the
>lock region might wake up another task.

If you wakeup another task you don't risk to get rescheduled before you
drop the lock.

Andrea

-
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 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:26 EST