Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Inconsistency in changing the state of task ?? | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 06 Mar 2003 15:05:39 -0500 |
| |
On Thu, 2003-03-06 at 08:11, prash_t@softhome.net wrote:
> Thanks Robert for the reply. > But I notice that __set_current_state() is same as current->state. So, I > didn't understand the safety factor on using __set_current_state( ).
There is no safety with __set_current_state(). It is just an abstraction.
The safety comes from set_current_state(), which ensures memory ordering.
This is an issue not just on SMP, but on a weakly ordered processor like Alpha.
> Also why should I use __set_current_state() instead of set_current_state() > when the later is SMP safe.
You only use __set_current_state() if you know you do not need to ensure memory ordering constraints.
Robert Love
- 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/
|  |