lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 01:52:58 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> corbet@lwn.net (Jonathan Corbet) writes:
>
> > diff --git a/include/linux/hardirq.h b/include/linux/hardirq.h
> > index 4982998..63a7782 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/hardirq.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/hardirq.h
> > @@ -72,6 +72,13 @@
> > #define in_softirq() (softirq_count())
> > #define in_interrupt() (irq_count())
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Are we running in atomic context? WARNING: this macro cannot
> > + * always detect atomic context; in particular, it cannot know about
> > + * held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels. Thus it should not be
> > + * used in the general case to determine whether sleeping is possible.
> > + * Do not use in_atomic() in driver code.
> > + */
> > #define in_atomic() ((preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) != 0)
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
>
> Is it just me who feels this comment that says "in_atomic() is not a way
> to tell if we are in atomic reliably and cannot be used for such and such"
> very reader-unfriendly? Ok, maybe the macro is not reliable and is not
> meant to be used for the purpose its name seems to suggest (at least to a
> non-kernel person). An inevitable question is, then what is it good for?
> What's the right situation to use this macro?
>
> I guess an additional comment "even if this says no, you could still be in
> atomic, but if this says yes, then you definitely are in atomic and cannot
> sleep" may help unconfuse a clueless reader like myself.

Andrew explained that in_atomic() could deadlock if called in a
condition where it is unreliable (although I did not understand the
details). Documenting that a "yes" from in_atomic() can always be
trusted, would invite driver authors to still use it, when my
understanding is that they still shouldn't.

If drivers shouldn't use in_atomic() at all then I think that the
long-term solution is to move its definition out of <linux/hardirq.h>.
But of course this means fixing all the drivers that still use it first.

--
Jean Delvare


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-25 11:43    [W:0.090 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site