> it was/is safe on any UP system, and it's also safe on 2.0 SMP.
I'm not sure -- Linus's theory is:
> So you have code that looks like
>
> repeat:
> current->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
> if (empty) {
> schedule();
> goto repeat;
> }
>
> but is actually executed as:
>
> CPU #0 CPU #1
>
> repeat:
> if (empty)
> empty = 0;
> tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING;
>
> tsk->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
> schedule()
but if the "if (empty)" is indeed re-ordered before the
"tsk->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE", it looks like even on UP, we
can take an interrupt just at the point in which the above example
took an interrupt and set "tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING" on CPU #1.
That interrupt will still set tsk->state = TASK_RUNNING on our single
CPU before we set the state to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, and then when we
return, we will not fall through schedule() and enter an uninterruptible
sleep.
Gadi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu