Re: spinlock recursion when running q800 emulation in qemu

[Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com>]

Hi Geert,

On 12/03/24 20:59, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 1:51 AM Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/03/24 21:35, Finn Thain wrote:
>>> I think spin_lock() reduces to preempt_disable() on UP.
>>> In include/linux/spinlock_api_up.h it says,
>>>
>>> /*
>>>    * In the UP-nondebug case there's no real locking going on, so the
>>>    * only thing we have to do is to keep the preempt counts and irq
>>>    * flags straight, to suppress compiler warnings of unused lock
>>>    * variables, and to add the proper checker annotations:
>>>    */
>> That's only true in the debug case - there, preempt_disable() is used
>> inside the spin loop. But m68k is one of the last CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE
>> archs AFAIR, and preempt_disable() reduces to barrier() on those.
> M68k does have experimental preempt support. I have been running
> that for the last 5 months. Works fine most of the time, except for
> the one BUG[1] that happens every 10 boots or so.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMuHMdUQ72KOPw5vxNfhjoTR-SsaELeKneBmyQPYEWa_o5OZZA@mail.gmail.com

Thanks for reminding me - I had forgotten that I had seen that bug report.

I'll give that a spin on ARAnyM - doubt it will work on my Falcon due to 
the extra kernel size.

Cheers,

     Michael


>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>                          Geert
>
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                  -- Linus Torvalds