Re: [PATCH] The idle notifier chain should be atomic

On Friday 24 February 2006 04:24, Alan Stern wrote:
 
> In do_IRQ() there's a call to exit_idle(), which calls __exit_idle(), 
> which runs the idle_notifier call chain.  Surely you're not saying that we 
> can do a down_read() in this pathway?

No, but not because it's in an interrupt but because sleeping in the idle
task is illegal.

> And actually the chain's type doesn't seem to make much difference, since
> at the moment there's nothing in the vanilla kernel that registers for the
> idle_notifier chain.

Will come eventually.

-Andi
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] The idle notifier chain should be atomic
    • From: Alan Stern <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] The idle notifier chain should be atomic
    • From: Alan Stern <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] The idle notifier chain should be atomic
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] driver core: better reference counting for klists
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] The idle notifier chain should be atomic
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] The idle notifier chain should be atomic
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]