On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 05:33:27PM +0200, Bjorn Wesen wrote:
> I realised I'm not entirely sure on if it's ok to do such "dangerous"
> functions inside, say, tq_immediate using queue_task even ? Doesn't that
> run in the interrupt context also, upon exit of the interrupt before going
> back ?
Yes it does, also you should use tasklets, never tq_immediate, these days
(tasklets can run in parallel and they're serialized only against
themself).
> IOW I want the irq to "trigger" the freeing of the iovecs but it's ok if
> it's done later, as long as it's done without any races :)
Your design looks suspect, but you can do that safely (at least as far
as vfree is concerned) with keventd's schedule_task().
> BTW how does vfree cope with not walking all tasks pgd's to remove the
> relevant pte's ? Doesn't that give exactly this kind of problem ? (pte's
vfree as usual walks the pgd/pmd to reach the pte. It knows the
pgd/pmd/pte cannot go away and it serlializes against vmalloc with the
vmlist_lock, it sounds ok.
Andrea
-
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 : Wed Aug 15 2001 - 21:00:27 EST