From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267151AbUBSKEy (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:04:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267155AbUBSKEy (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:04:54 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:11761 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267151AbUBSKEx (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 05:04:53 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 15:35:50 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Andrew Morton Cc: Ingo Molnar , rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: keventd_create_kthread Message-ID: <20040219100549.GA27018@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@in.ibm.com References: <20040218231322.35EE92C05F@lists.samba.org> <20040219001011.6245f163.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040219001011.6245f163.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:12:19AM +0000, Andrew Morton wrote: > However, if that wake_up_process() comes too early we'll just flip the new > thread out of TASK_INTERUPTIBLE into TASK_RUNNING and the schedule() in > kthread() will fall straight through. So perhaps we can simply remove the > wait_task_inactive()? If wake_up_process() comes too early (when the target task is still in TASK_RUNNING state), then won't wake_up_process() be a no-op? In which case, the target kthread will miss a wake-up event (kthread_start/kthread_stop)? -- Thanks and Regards, Srivatsa Vaddagiri, Linux Technology Center, IBM Software Labs, Bangalore, INDIA - 560017