Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-26,: Re: spinlocks() are severely broken in 2.2.X and 2.4.X for modules

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

Keith Owens (kaos@ocs.com.au)
Sat, 01 Jul 2000 23:07:10 +1000

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Yoann Vandoorselaere: "Re: Low Latency Patch"
- Previous message: James Simmons: "Re: console_lock too early in printk???"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeff V. Merkey: "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"

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
for 10 bytes. But code like __build_read_lock_const generates a lot
more code. One size does not fit all.

-
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: Yoann Vandoorselaere: "Re: Low Latency Patch"
- Previous message: James Simmons: "Re: console_lock too early in printk???"
- Maybe in reply to: Jeff V. Merkey: "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"