[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Q: preemptible kernel and interrupts consistency.
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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.137 / U:33.072 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site