Messages in this thread | | | From | "Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky" <> | Subject | RE: Inconsistency in changing the state of task ?? | Date | Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:22:30 -0800 |
| |
> > Thanks Robert for the reply. > > But I notice that __set_current_state() is same as current->state. So, I > > didn't understand the safety factor on using __set_current_state( ). > > There is no safety with __set_current_state(). It is just an > abstraction. > > The safety comes from set_current_state(), which ensures memory > ordering. > > This is an issue not just on SMP, but on a weakly ordered processor like > Alpha. > > > Also why should I use __set_current_state() instead of > set_current_state() > > when the later is SMP safe. > > You only use __set_current_state() if you know you do not need to ensure > memory ordering constraints.
Man, I forgot how many times I have already posted the patch to fix this ...
Iñaky Pérez-González -- Not speaking for Intel -- all opinions are my own (and my fault)
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |