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

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:

> 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.

Well, either reason is sufficient justification for making idle_notifier 
an atomic chain.

> > 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.

Will that be just for x86_64 or for all architectures?

Alan Stern

-
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/

---

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

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] driver core: better reference counting for klists
• Next by Date: Re: [patch] fix ia64 hugetlb_free_pgd_range
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] The idle notifier chain should be atomic
• Next by thread: [PATCH] Avoid calling down_read and down_write during startup
• 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]