lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Inconsistency in changing the state of task ??
Date
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( ).

Also why should I use __set_current_state() instead of set_current_state()
when the later is SMP safe.

Thanks in advance....
Prashanth

Robert Love writes:

> On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 03:36, prash_t@softhome.net wrote:
>
>> while browsing through fs/select.c file of 2.4.19, I came across two
>> DIFFERENT ways of changing the state of the current task in do_select():
>>
>> set_current_state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
>> AND current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
>>
>> I am curious to know if the second line of code doesn't cause any problem in
>> SMP systems. I also see the same situation in do_poll().
>
> You normally want to use set_current_state(), which is a nice
> abstraction and safe for SMP.
>
> Sometimes it is safe to use __set_current_state(), which does not
> provide a memory barrier.
>
> The above open-coded line can be changed to
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING).
>
> 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.107 / U:0.880 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site