Please don't answer in riddles. This page: https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/x157.html
...in particular says that timers are basically softirq's, and it therefore seems to imply the use of spin_lock_bh. Presumably what I didn't understand is that spin_lock_bh should be used in the user context, and a simple spin lock should be used in the timer because it is a softirq? Thanks, Nick > On Aug 11, 2015, at 7:10 PM, nick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 2015-08-11 10:01 PM, Nicholas Murphy wrote: >> So reading this: >> >> https://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/x137.html >> >> …led me to believe that spin_lock_bh() was the correct primitive to use >> within a callback from a high resolution timer, but that didn’t work. >> Instead using spin_lock_irqsave() did work, however. Can someone explain >> why? >> >> Thanks, >> Nick > Think about where a timer's execution is handled when the timer's timeout is > executed. > Nick >> _______________________________________________ >> Kernelnewbies mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies >> _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
