Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 12:01:06 +0100
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 12:53 +0200, Ingo Molnar quoted Andrew:
Nonsense. mutex_lock() can sleep. Sleeping will enable interrupts.
Therefore, hence, ergo ipso facto mutex_lock() can enable interrupts. QED,
that's it.
But now, because some broken piece of hardware is coming out of
reset/firmware asserting an interrupt we need to change the rules to be
"mutex_lock() must preserve local interrupts if the lock is uncontended".
Ditto down(), down_read() and down_write().
And why does this bizarre restriction upon the implementation of our
locking primtives exist? Because of your broken PIC and because of our
inability to sort out the early boot code. And because the early boot code
has this implicit knowledge that the locks will be uncontended, else we're
toast.
We're doing mutex_lock(), down(), down_read() and down_write() with local
interrupts disabled, which is a bug. We have explicit code in there to
*disable* our runtime debugging checks because we know about this bug but
don't know how to fix it.
I call that sucky.
OK, if you put it like that, and you're going to be consistent by
declaring the disabling of __might_sleep() warnings to be sucky too,
then I suppose we can buy that argument.
Yes, we need to sort out the early boot code. It isn't so much that
we're unable as that nobody's really tried very hard. People seem scared
of it -- they even invent pointless special cases like the
'earlyconsole' crap instead of just registering the damn consoles
earlier, for example. Register_console() has _always_ worked right from
the beginning of setup_arch(), and I've often put it there.
Let's make a concerted effort to reorder the startup code so that we
_can_ enable interrupts and have slab working quite early. Ben's plans
for this look sane enough to me.
--
dwmw2
-
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/
- References:
- 2.6.18 -mm merge plans
- From: Andrew Morton
- mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Andrew Morton
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Andrew Morton
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: David Woodhouse
- Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- From: Ingo Molnar
- 2.6.18 -mm merge plans
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] updated reiser4 - reduced cpu usage for writes by writing more than 4k at a time (has implications for generic write code and eventually for the IO layer)
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6-mm1 ] net: RFC 3828-compliant UDP-Lite support
- Previous by thread: Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- Next by thread: Re: mutex vs. local irqs (Was: 2.6.18 -mm merge plans)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|