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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site