On Thursday 01 March 2007, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 18:45 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > plain text document attachment (spufs-master-control.diff)
> > When the user changes the runcontrol register, an SPU might be
> > running without a process being attached to it and waiting for
> > events. In order to prevent this, make sure we always disable
> > the priv1 master control when we're not inside of spu_run.
>
> Hi Arnd,
>
> Sorry I didn't comment on this when you sent it, I wasn't paying enough
> attention. This patch confuses me, you say we should make sure we always
> disable the master control when we're not inside spu_run, but I see
> several exit paths where we leave the master run bit enabled - or maybe
> I'm reading it wrong.
I think you're right, there is at least one path that I now saw
getting out of spufs_run_spu incorrectly. In particular, when
spu_reacquire_runnable() fails, we never call the master stop,
which is a bug, but should happen very infrequently in practice.
Do you see another case where we end up with the same problem?
If not, I'll prepare a patch to fix this one case.
Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
