[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0709261037390.4267-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:39:06 -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 Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> Hmmm... I always thought the queue was because the condition can change
> inbetween waking up and actually running. For example, if the condition
> is !(queue empty), another task can enter the critical section and
> consume the element which triggered wake up before the woken up task do.
That's the other part of the reason for using a loop. :-)
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