On 09/02/2011 07:47 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 17:55 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> We need to make sure interrupts are disabled while we're relying on the
>> contents of the per-cpu lock_waiting values, otherwise an interrupt
>> handler could come in, try to take some other lock, block, and overwrite
>> our values.
> Would this make it illegal to take a spinlock from NMI context?
That would be problematic. But a Xen domain wouldn't be getting NMIs -
at least not standard x86 ones - so that's moot.
> I know that its generally considered bad form, but there's at least one
> spinlock that's only taken from NMI context and thus hasn't got any
> deadlock potential.
Which one?
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
