lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] unnecessary blocking interrupts in exit_notify()
Jun Sun:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > It can deadlock due to an interrupt doing a read_lock() on the
> > tasklist_lock while we hold the write lock.
> >
> On the other hand, why would an interrupt routine need to acquire
> the read lock on tasklist_lock at first place?

Hmmm. The task list is read-locked by a whole lot of procedures,
including do_SAK(). Or kill_fasync() by way of send_sigio().
A few other places come to mind, but kill_fasync() definitely is the
killer for your proposed patch.

I would say that forbidding to send signals from interrupt (or BH) context
is a Very Bad Thing.

--
Matthias Urlichs | noris network GmbH | smurf@noris.de | ICQ: 20193661
The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://www.noris.de/~smurf/
--
Problem mit cookie: Permission denied at /usr/local/bin/cookie line 14.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.030 / U:0.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site