[lkml]   [2000]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] NE2000 wrote:
> Hello!
> > No, that code is correct, provided (current->state == TASK_RUNNING)
> > on entry. If it isn't, there's a race window which can cause
> > lost wakeups. As a check you could add:
> >
> > if ((current->state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE|TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE)) == 0)
> > BUG();
> Though it really cannot happen and really happens, as we have seen... 8)
> In any case, Andrew, where is the race, when we enter in sleeping state?
> Wakeup is not lost, it is just not required when we are not going
> to schedule and force task to running state.

/* window here */

If there's a wakeup by another CPU (or this CPU in an interrupt) in
that window, current->state will get switched to TASK_RUNNING.

Then it's immediately overwritten and we go to sleep. Lost wakeup.

> I still do not see how it is possible that task runs in sleeping state.
> Apparently, set_current_state is forgotten somewhere. Do you see, where? 8)

Nope. Is Jorge running SMP?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:51    [W:0.164 / U:0.080 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site