[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0709251105540.3909-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:09:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
<cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>, <greg@...ah.com>,
<kay.sievers@...y.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] module: implement module_inhibit_unload()
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Alan Stern wrote:
> >> The unloading can proceed once module_unload_inhibit_cnt reaches zero.
> >> An unloading thread only has to care about inhibition put in effect
> >> before unloading has started, so there's no need to check again.
> >
> > You haven't fully answered Jon's question. Suppose
> > module_unload_inhibit_cnt is nonzero, so the task adds itself to the
> > module_unload_wait queue, changes to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, and calls
> > schedule. There's nothing to prevent somebody else from waking the
> > task back up before the original inhibition has been lifted.
>
> Hmmm... I might be missing something here. Who else can wake up a
> thread in uninterruptible sleep?
In principle, anything can. There has never been any guarantee in the
kernel that a task sleeping on a waitqueue will remain asleep until
the waitqueue is signalled. That's part of the reason why things like
__wait_event() are coded as loops.
Alan Stern
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists