Mathijs> On 12-Nov-2001 Momchil Velikov wrote:
>> In this patch, the first thing is to deschedule the tasklet. So,
>> the changes to interrupt.h are needed in order to put back the
>> tasklet in the queue.
Mathijs> I know, but Andrea suggested not to allow scheduling of
Mathijs> disabled tasklets Also, enableing the tasklet will result in
Disabled tasklets are not scheduled by enable_tasklet (). A disabled
tasklet may temporarily appear in the queue, but nevertheless
tasklet_action will remove it. It seems gross to traverse the list in
order to remove a tasklet at the first disable.
Mathijs> a scheduled tasklet, regardless whether it was
Hmm, if it isn't scheduled, there is not much sense in disabling it at
Mathijs> Plus, we are not sure if it is scheduled on the
Mathijs> same cpu that did the tasklet_schedule (but i might be the
Mathijs> only one who cares about this ;)
Mathijs> thisone we should add some comments to interrupt.h warning
Mathijs> about deadlocks etc.
>> What deadlocks ? ;)
Mathijs> well, loops. Dont use tasklet_kill on disabled tasklet or on
Mathijs> not scheduled tasklets.
Hmm, if TASKLET_STATE_SCHED is not set tasklet_kill will not deadlock.
And tasklet_kill yields (?). Doesn't that mean that tasklet_action
will be called eventually ?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/