lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: locking problems
Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Jun Sun wrote:
> >
> > BTW, I really think interrupt handlers acquiring the same locks which
> > can be acquired by processes is a *BIG* problem in Linux. We should fix
> > this problem. Unfortunately I am not familiar with Linux kernel well
> > enough to offer a solution.
>
> Why do you think this? Any specific examples in mind?
>

Linus told me so. I believe him. :-)

I did sniff around the source code and spotted a couple of places where
locks COULD be acquired by ISRs, but I never did a RUN-TIME check to
catch this situation.

Apparently Rik seems to confirm that. See his reply.

---

I believe the problem here is that Linux does not have a CLEAR notion
and separation of task-context code and interrupt-context code.

Imagine if a kernel function needs to read task list, then it must
acquire a read lock on tasklist_lock. However, the function might be
called from both process and ISR, then we will have the ISR acquiring
lock problem.

I don't know if this has been a problem to Linux in the past. I am
relatively new to Linux kernel.

Jun

-
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:0.045 / U:1.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site