Messages in this thread | | | Date | 20 Mar 2000 03:33:37 +0100 | From | (Matthias Urlichs) | Subject | Re: [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/
| |