[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080318001429.896acf51.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:14:29 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
Richard Purdie <rpurdie@...ys.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:46:23 -0800 David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> On Sunday 16 March 2008, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Is the use of "if (preempt_count())" to know when to defer led gpio work to
> > a workqueue needed? __Shouldn't "if (in_atomic())" be enough?
>
> At this point, I don't know of any such reason.
>
> I remember hunting for the right heuristic, and settling on
> that one for reasons that I can't recall now. They may even
> be no longer applicable.
Both are incorrect. When CONFIG_PREEMPT=n we have no support for
determining whether schedule() may be called. The calling code has to sort
out its stuff on its own.
<greps for preempt_count>
The LEDs code seems to be the sole offender. print_vma_addr() might be
wrong too, but Ingo did it, and perhaps he knows that all code paths which
call print_vma_addr() from deadlockable contexts have already called
inc_preempt_count(). But is that true for all architectures?
<greps for in_atomic>
omigawd, what have we done, and how can we fix it? :(
--
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