From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, roland@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: wait_task_inactive() and !CONFIG_SMP && CONFIG_PREEMPT
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 09:51:53 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0807270948410.3486@nehalem.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080727121540.GB178@tv-sign.ru>
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Without CONFIG_SMP wait_task_inactive() is noop, this doesn't look right.
> Shouldn't we also take CONFIG_PREEMPT into account?
The exit path had _better_ be non-preemptable until it hits the final
schedule that disables it (and that wait_task_inactive() was waiting for).
At least that used to be the rule.
Of course, historically the only user for this was just the "wait for
exit to complete" case. And that isn't really true any more, I guess. So I
dunno.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-27 16:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200807260245.m6Q2jwB4012297@imap1.linux-foundation.org>
2008-07-27 11:37 ` [PATCH] wait_task_inactive: don't consider task->nivcsw Oleg Nesterov
2008-07-27 19:55 ` Roland McGrath
2008-07-27 12:15 ` Q: wait_task_inactive() and !CONFIG_SMP && CONFIG_PREEMPT Oleg Nesterov
2008-07-27 16:51 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2008-07-27 20:05 ` Roland McGrath
2008-07-28 12:57 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-07-28 23:39 ` Roland McGrath
2008-07-29 12:21 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-08-01 1:27 ` Roland McGrath
2008-08-01 11:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-08-01 21:22 ` Roland McGrath
2008-07-27 12:42 ` [PATCH] kthread_bind: use wait_task_inactive(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) Oleg Nesterov
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=alpine.LFD.1.10.0807270948410.3486@nehalem.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®