lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: use of preempt_count instead of in_atomic() at leds-gpio.c
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > > > Now, it happens that in_atomic() returns true on non-preemtible kernels
> > > > when running in interrupt or softirq context. But if the above code really
> > > > is using in_atomic() to detect am-i-called-from-interrupt and NOT
> > > > am-i-called-from-inside-spinlock, they should be using in_irq(),
> > > > in_softirq() or in_interrupt().
> > >
> > > Presumably most of these places are actually trying to detect
> > > am-i-allowed-to-sleep. Isn't that what in_atomic() is supposed to do?
> >
> > No, I think there is no such check in the kernel. Most likely for performance
> > reasons, as it would require a global flag that is set on each spinlock.
>
> Yup. non-preemptible kernels avoid the inc/dec of
> current_thread_info->preempt_count on spin_lock/spin_unlock

So then what's the point of having in_atomic() at all? Is it nothing
more than a shorthand form of (in_irq() | in_softirq() |
in_interrupt())?

In short, you are saying that there is _no_ reliable way to determine
am-i-called-from-inside-spinlock. Well, why isn't there? Would it be
so terrible if non-preemptible kernels did adjust preempt_count on
spin_lock/unlock?

Alan Stern



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-21 04:09    [W:0.106 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site