Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules

From: Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de)
Date: Sat Jul 01 2000 - 09:17:06 EDT

Next message: Manfred Spraul: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"

Previous message: James Simmons: "Re: console_lock too early in printk???"
In reply to: Keith Owens: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Next in thread: Rui Sousa: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 11:07:10PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jul 2000 14:32:15 +0200,
> "Andi Kleen" <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> >Here is a quick hack. The results are slightly off because of section
> >padding though. It only works on object files or modules (vmlinux doesn't
> >have any reloc records)
>
> Why $SPINSIZE = 14? On ix86 most .text.lock code is
> call helper
> jmp 1b

That's the semaphore. spinlocks are 14 bytes (+padding). Yes, it needs some
more tuning.

-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Manfred Spraul: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Previous message: James Simmons: "Re: console_lock too early in printk???"
In reply to: Keith Owens: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Next in thread: Manfred Spraul: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Next in thread: Rui Sousa: "Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 01 2000 - 09:39:31 EDT