From: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
To: george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
Cc: nigel@nrg.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH for 2.5] preemptible kernel
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 20:04:57 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <22873.985165497@ocs3.ocs-net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:04:56 -0800." <3AB860A8.182A10C7@mvista.com>
On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:04:56 -0800,
george anzinger <george@mvista.com> wrote:
>Exactly so. The method does not depend on the sum of preemption being
>zip, but on each potential reader (writers take locks) passing thru a
>"sync point". Your notion of waiting for each task to arrive
>"naturally" at schedule() would work. It is, in fact, over kill as you
>could also add arrival at sys call exit as a (the) "sync point". In
>fact, for module unload, isn't this the real "sync point"? After all, a
>module can call schedule, or did I miss a usage counter somewhere?
A module can call schedule but it must do MOD_INC_USE_COUNT first.
Sleeping in module code without incrementing the module use count first
is a shooting offence. It is so full of races that you may as well
call it Daytona.
>By the way, there is a paper on this somewhere on the web. Anyone
>remember where?
http://www.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/paper/rclockpdcsproof.pdf
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-03-21 9:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-03-15 1:25 [PATCH for 2.5] preemptible kernel Nigel Gamble
2001-03-17 17:34 ` Pavel Machek
2001-03-19 21:01 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-03-20 8:43 ` Rusty Russell
2001-03-20 9:32 ` Keith Owens
2001-03-21 0:48 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-03-21 1:23 ` Keith Owens
2001-03-21 3:35 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-03-21 8:04 ` george anzinger
2001-03-21 9:04 ` Keith Owens [this message]
2001-03-21 14:32 ` Rusty Russell
2001-03-23 20:42 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-03-28 11:47 ` Dipankar Sarma
2001-03-21 9:19 ` Keith Owens
2001-03-21 9:41 ` David S. Miller
2001-03-21 10:05 ` Andrew Morton
2001-03-22 0:20 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-03-21 10:57 ` george anzinger
2001-03-21 11:30 ` David S. Miller
2001-03-21 17:07 ` george anzinger
2001-03-21 18:18 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-03-21 22:25 ` Rusty Russell
2001-03-21 15:46 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-03-28 10:20 ` Dipankar Sarma
2001-03-28 20:51 ` george anzinger
2001-03-29 9:43 ` Dipankar Sarma
2001-03-30 6:32 ` Keith Owens
2001-03-21 0:24 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-03-30 0:26 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-03-30 20:11 ` Rusty Russell
2001-04-01 7:48 ` george anzinger
2001-04-01 21:13 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-04-02 19:56 ` george anzinger
2001-04-04 17:59 ` Rusty Russell
2001-04-01 21:07 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-04-04 17:51 ` Rusty Russell
2001-03-20 18:25 ` Roger Larsson
2001-03-20 22:06 ` Nigel Gamble
2001-03-20 22:27 ` george anzinger
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-04-06 23:52 Paul McKenney
2001-04-07 0:45 ` Andi Kleen
2001-04-07 1:25 Paul McKenney
2001-04-07 19:59 ` Rusty Russell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=22873.985165497@ocs3.ocs-net \
--to=kaos@ocs.com.au \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nigel@nrg.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox