[lkml]   [2001]   [Jan]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Manfred Spraul wrote:

    > It isn't wrong to call schedule() with disabled interrupts - it's a
    > feature ;-)
    > Those 10% sleep_on() users that aren't broken use it:
    > for(;;) {
    > cli();
    > if(condition)
    > break;
    > sleep_on(&my_wait_queue);
    > sti();
    > }

    That's valid iff the wake_up() can only happen from an ISR.

    > E.g. TIOCMIWAIT in drivers/char/serial.c - a nearly correct sleep_on()
    > user.

    TIOCMIWAIT does restore_flags() before interruptible_sleep_on(). It's
    broken too.

    Anyway, if you're feeling pedantic, consider what happens if shutdown() is
    called from rs_close() just before sleep_on() is called. Regardless of
    whether interrupts are disabled.

    > But I doubt that 10% of the sleep_on() users are non-broken...

    There are cases where you don't care if you miss a wakeup because you have
    a timeout. So it's only suboptimal rather than broken. I did produce a
    patch to BUG() in sleep_on if the BKL isn't held, at one point. It was
    quite interesting.

    > If you remove sleep_on(), then you can disallow calling schedule() with
    > disabled local interrupts.

    The remaining valid users of sleep_on are mainly filesystems - much fs
    code gets called with the BKL held. I expect that to change during 2.5, at
    which point sleep_on can be terminated with extreme prejudice.


    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 13:24    [W:0.026 / U:119.944 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site