[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: tasklet_kill will always hang for recursive tasklets on a UP
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 07:53:11PM +0400, wrote:
> Hello!
> > Here we have it! In my opintion, the line
> >
> > clear_bit(TASKLET_STATE_SCHED, &t->state);
> >
> > is just a _BUG_.
> No, really. The sense of tasklet_kill() is that tasklet is under complete
> control of caller upon exit from it. This clear_bit just makes some (only
> marginally useful) reinitialization for the case the user will want
> to reuse the struct. Essentially, after tasklet_unlock_wait() you can do
> everything with the struct, it is not an alive object anymore.

Because the function as it is written is useless, but with
changing from "clear_bit" to "set_bit" it would be - at least partly -
useful, I still believe, it is a bug. Does anybody know, who is
responsible for the function?

> > 2. we should find some means to make it usable for recursive tasklets.
> I would not say it is easy. When tasklet is enqueued on another cpu you
> have no way to stop it unless you are in process context, where you can
> sit and wait for completion.

For sure, not easy.
But tasklet_kill will mostly be called in process context, won't it?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:48    [W:0.056 / U:1.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site