Re: [PATCH] /proc/locks bugfix

From: Manfred Spraul (manfreds@colorfullife.com)
Date: Fri Apr 21 2000 - 13:19:36 EST


willy@thepuffingroup.com wrote:
>
> I've fixed this in
> my tree by putting all accesses to the lock data structures under its
> own semaphore.
>

It's dangerous to replace lock_kernel() with a single semaphore:
lock_kernel() means one cpu, down() means one thread.

Did you double check that you don't cause a major slowdown/reschedules,
e.g. if kmalloc() sleeps?

I've always replaced lock_kernel() with one spinlock.

--
	Manfred

- 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 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 21:00:19 EST