![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 07:19:01PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Yes, the logic in worker_thread() is a bit dorky, but I > don't believe that there is a race in there. worker_thread examines kthread_should_stop() while its state is TASK_RUNNING, after which it sets its state to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE. If kthread_stop were to come after kthread_should_stop and before worker_thread has set its state to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE (which is possible because of a CPU going dead), wouldn't kthread_stop block forever? Note that in case of CPU going dead, it is possible that a worker thread bound to the dead cpu continues executing on a different cpu before it is killed in CPU_DEAD processing. Am I missing something here? -- Thanks and Regards, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Labs, Bangalore, INDIA - 560017 - 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 13:02 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||