Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:29:14 +0100 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> |
| |
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 09:35:53PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 08:47:50PM +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > > You still miss wakeups. :) > > And there was another race in it, I know. The first __set_task_state > has to be set_task_state to get the right memory write order on SMP.
If the wakeup is serialized by the spinlock too (as your code looks like to assume) you can legally use __set_task_state instead of set_task_state. An example of such an usage (where wakeup is serialized by the spinlock) is lock_sock/unlock_sock.
Andrea - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |