![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > (It _looks_ obvious enough, but can you check that there are no pointers > that we might be following in the "is it running" checks that could be > stale because we don't hold the runqueue lock any more). the 'is it running' check is 'task_curr(p)', which in this circumstance is equivalent to the following test: per_cpu(runqueues, (cpu)).curr == p where 'cpu' is p->thread_info->cpu. All pointers dereferenced in this test are stable, because 1) send_signal() is always called within the siglock, which serializes with task exit 2) p->thread_info->cpu is always valid for the same reason. so this seems to be safe to me. Ingo - 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 13:58 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||