lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: programming for preemption (was: [PATCH] 2.5.46: access permission filesystem)
Date
Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com> writes:

> Olaf Dietsche wrote:
>>
>> Ben Clifford <benc@hawaga.org.uk> writes:
>>
>> > I still get those stack traces, though...
>>
>> I retested with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y and now I get those stack traces,
>> too. So, it seems my code is not preempt safe.
>>
>
> It's not that your code is unsafe with preemption. It's just that
> CONFIG_PREEMPT=y turns on the debugging infrastructure which allows
> us to detect things like calling kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) inside spinlock.

Thanks for this hint. So this means kmalloc(GFP_KERNEL) inside
spinlock is not necessarily dangerous, but should be avoided if
possible? Is using a semaphore better than using spinlocks? Is
there a list of dos and don'ts for preempt kernels beside
Documentation/preempt-locking.txt?

And btw, who is "us"?

Regards, Olaf.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.094 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site