Hello Frank.
Dne petek 28. februar 2003 20:44 je Frank A. Uepping napisal(a):
> For clarification.
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/spinlock.txt contains AFAIK a great description
of spinlocks.
> When I have a struct that I access from proc and int context I have
> to use the _irqsave() variant in the proc context (in order to prevent
> an irq to be happen) but in the int context I stick to the common variant.
Ehmmm... this can be read a bit missleadingly. Let me try to state it better:
1. Structures accessed from all contexts:
(use this if unsure what to do -- this is the safest way of mutex, but no
schedule() is allowed !!)
spin_lock_irqsave(&xxx_lock, flags);
... critical section here ..
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&xxx_lock, flags);
2. Structures accessed from user context only:
One should use mutexes here anyway :P
spin_lock(&lock);
...
spin_unlock(&lock);
3. There are also read/write spinlocks that optimise a case of multiple
readers and few writers. But I won't go into these.
read /usr/src/linux/Documentation/spinlock.txt for details :-).
> Further a spinlock in not allowed to hold while the current proc sleeps.
> Semaphores are not allowed to use in int context because they might
> sleep/block.
:-).
--
best regards,
Rok Papež.
--
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
FAQ: http://kernelnewbies.org/faq/
