On 4 Apr 2002, Robert Love wrote:
>
> Thanks for the CC. I've been looking into this problem. I am not too
> sure why we require protection from concurrency via preemption and not
> via SMP. In other words, why are we SMP-safe but not preempt-safe here.
>
> I don't really have an answer.
The answer is that preempt_schedule() illegally sets
current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
without asking the process whether that's ok. The SMP code never does
anything like that.
Linus
-
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 : Sun Apr 07 2002 - 22:00:14 EST