From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757301Ab1IAL5A (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2011 07:57:00 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:40740 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753055Ab1IAL46 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Sep 2011 07:56:58 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs-writeback: Using spin_lock to check for work_list empty From: Peter Zijlstra To: Rajan Aggarwal Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:56:54 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1314767509-17862-1-git-send-email-rajan.aggarwal85@gmail.com> References: <1314767509-17862-1-git-send-email-rajan.aggarwal85@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.2- Message-ID: <1314878214.11566.8.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 10:41 +0530, Rajan Aggarwal wrote: > > If the list is not empty, and if an interrupt happens before we > set the current->state to TASK_RUNNING then we could be stuck in > a schedule() due to kernel preemption. No, look at PREEMPT_ACTIVE use in kernel/sched.c