On Wednesday 07 March 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i'm not an xmon expert, but maybe it might make more sense to first
> disable preemption, then interrupts - otherwise you could be preempted
> right after having disabled these interrupts (and be scheduled to
> another CPU, etc.). What is the difference between local_irq_save() and
> the above 'disable interrupts' sequence? If it's not the same and
> xmon_core() relied on having hardirqs disabled then it might make sense
> to do a local_irq_save() there, instead of a preempt_disable().
Since relatively recently, powerpc does no longer actually disable
the hardware interrupts with local_irq_disable(), but rather sets
a per-cpu flag that will be checked if an actual interrupt comes
in as part of the critical section.
The mtmsr() sequence in xmon corresponds to hard_irq_disable()
and should probably changed to that, but then you still need
the extra preempt_disable() / preempt_enable().
I think you're right about the sequence having to be
1. preempt_disable()
2. hard_irq_disable()
3.
4. hard_irq_enable()
5. preempt_enable()
Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
