On Wednesday 25 October 2006 14:29, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Andi,
>
> Looking a the exit_idle() code:
>
> static void __exit_idle(void)
> {
> if (read_pda(isidle) == 0)
> return;
> write_pda(isidle, 0);
> atomic_notifier_call_chain(&idle_notifier, IDLE_END, NULL);
> }
>
> I am wondering whether you are exposed to a race condition w.r.t. to
> interrupts. Supposed you are in idle, you get an interrupt and you execute
> __exit_idle(), the test evaluate to false but before you can change the
> value of isidle, you get a higher priority interrupt which then also calls
> __exit_idle(), the test is still false and you invoke the notifier, when
> you return from this interrupt you also clear the isidle, but you call the
> notifier yet a second time.
>
> I think that isidle needs to be test_and_clear atomically for this to
> guarantee only one call the notifier on __exit_idle().
>
> what do you think?
Agreed. I will fix that. Thanks
-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/
[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]
