From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932506AbWF2UsO (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:48:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932507AbWF2UsO (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:48:14 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:63388 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932506AbWF2UsN (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:48:13 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:43:28 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: kaos@ocs.com.au, ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: i386 IPI handlers running with hardirq_count == 0 Message-ID: <20060629204328.GA31307@elte.hu> References: <9914.1151600442@ocs3.ocs.com.au> <20060629201752.GA25300@elte.hu> <20060629134731.518120b8.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060629134731.518120b8.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: 0.1 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=0.1 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 0.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5010] 0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton wrote: > There's a risk that spin_unlock() in an IPI handler could blow up due > to it trying to reschedule. But preempt_schedule() explicitly checks > the CPU's interupt flag so as long as that doesn't change we're OK. yes. Enabling hardirqs in an IPI handler would be a quite bad idea anyway, they are all quite short. Ingo