Re: [PATCH] NMI request/release

[Corey Minyard]

Dipankar Sarma wrote:

>On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 03:10:06PM +0200, Corey Minyard wrote:
>  
>
>>>If it's possible (and I have no idea, not having looked at RCU at all)
>>>it seems the right way.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>I looked, and the rcu code relys on turning off interrupts to avoid 
>>preemption.  So it won't work.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Hmm.. Let me see -
>
>You need to walk the list in call_nmi_handlers from nmi interrupt handler where
>preemption is not an issue anyway. Using RCU you can possibly do a safe
>walking of the nmi handlers. To do this, your update side code
>(request/release nmi) will still have to be serialized (spinlock), but
>you should not need to wait for completion of any other CPU executing
>the nmi handler, instead provide wrappers for nmi_handler
>allocation/free and there free the nmi_handler using an RCU callback
>(call_rcu()). The nmi_handler will not be freed until all the CPUs
>have done a contex switch or executed user-level or been idle.
>This will gurantee that *this* nmi_handler is not in execution
>and can safely be freed.
>
>This of course is a very simplistic view of the things, there could
>be complications that I may have overlooked. But I would be happy
>to help out on this if you want.
>
This doesn't sound any simpler than what I am doing right now.  In fact, 
it sounds more complex.  Am I correct?  What I am doing is pretty simple 
and correct.  Maybe more complexity would be required if you couldn't 
atomically update a pointer, but I think simplicity should win here.

Thanks,

-Corey