On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> Now if you don't disable interrupts then nothing prevents an interrupt
> handler, or another thread if kernel preemption is allowed
Preemption, yes. Interrupts no.
> to come
> along right between (2) and (4) to call up() or down() which will
> make the sem count inconsistent as soon as the interrupted down() or
> up() is resumed.
An interrupt can never change the value without changing it back, except
for the old-fashioned use of "up()" as a completion (which I don't think
we do any more - we used to do it for IO completion a looong time ago).
So I think the interrupt disable could be removed for UP, at least for
non-preemption.
(Of course, maybe it's not worth it. It might not be a big performance
issue).
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
