Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:54:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:54:02 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.138]:41490 "EHLO smtpzilla2.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 12 Jan 2002 15:53:50 -0500 Message-ID: <3C40A255.EBE646@linux-m68k.org> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002 21:53:41 +0100 From: Roman Zippel X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.17 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Cox CC: arjan@fenrus.demon.nl, Rob Landley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [2.4.17/18pre] VM and swap - it's really unusable In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Alan Cox wrote: > So with pre-empt this happens > > driver magic > disable_irq(dev->irq) > PRE-EMPT: > [large periods of time running other code] > PRE-EMPT: > We get back and we've missed 300 packets, the serial port sharing > the IRQ has dropped our internet connection completely. But it shouldn't deadlock as Victor is suggesting. > There are numerous other examples in the kernel tree where the current code > knows that there is a small bounded time between two actions in kernel space > that do not have a sleep. They are not spin locked, and putting spin locks > everywhere will just trash performance. They are pure hardware interactions > so you can't automatically detect them. Why should spin locks trash perfomance, while an expensive disable_irq() doesn't? bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/