lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Q: preemptible kernel and interrupts consistency.
    From
    Date
    On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 14:19, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

    > Safe? Look, if process does not hold any spinlock and interrupts
    > disabled, then any distant implicit call to resched_task() silently
    > enables irqs. At least, this must be documented.

    If interrupts are disabled, where is this distant implicit call from
    resched_task() coming from?

    That was my point, aside from interrupt handlers all the
    need_resched-touching code is in sched.c and both Ingo and I verified
    everything is locked.

    If interrupts are disabled, there are no interrupts handlers. And if
    you are in an interrupt handler, preemption is already disabled.

    Robert Love

    -
    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 13:27    [W:0.026 / U:0.060 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site