linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs-writeback: Using spin_lock to check for work

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1314878214.11566.8.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:56:54 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Rajan Aggarwal <rajan.aggarwal85@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fs-writeback: Using spin_lock to check for
 work_list empty

On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 10:41 +0530, Rajan Aggarwal wrote:
> 
> If the list is not empty, and if an interrupt happens before we
> set the current->state to TASK_RUNNING then we could be stuck in
> a schedule() due to kernel preemption. 

No, look at PREEMPT_ACTIVE use in kernel/sched.c
--
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/