On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 06:00:42PM -0400, Robert Love wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 17:54, Joe Korty wrote:
>
> > Is this analysis correct? If it is, perhaps there is an alternative
> > to fixing these cases individually: make the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE/
> > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE states block preemption. In which case the
> > 'set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING)' macro would need to include the
> > same preemption check as 'preemption_enable'.
>
> Thankfully you are wrong or we would have some serious problems :)
>
> See kernel/sched.c :: preempt_schedule() where we set p->preempt_count
> to PREEMPT_ACTIVE.
>
> Then see kernel/sched.c :: schedule() where we short-circuit the
> remove-from-runqueue code if PREEMPT_ACTIVE is set.
>
> Thus, it is safe to preempt regardless of the task's state. It will
> eventually reschedule.
>
> Robert Love
I see. It is because the 'goto pick_next_task' skips the
'deactivate_task' call. Therefore the previous task remains on the
run queue in spite of its TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state. Clever!
Joe
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 22:00:34 EST