On Saturday 10 November 2001 16:03, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> just playing with the "softirq_raise" would be much simpler but I can
> see only one problem: we don't know what cpu the tasklet is scheduled
> into, so we don't know where to signal the local softirq.
>
> So it seems to fix the looping problem of disabled tasklets we should
> really dschedule the tasklet in tasklet_disable (and of course to forbid
> it to be scheduled when disabled in tasklet_schedule) and later to
> reschedule it in tasklet_enable.
Or add a cpu field to struct tasklet_struct.
> Infact at the moment it's even impossible to remove a tasklet from the
> queue if it remains disabled forever. tasklet_kill will deadlock on a
> tasklet that is disabled.
I think this is the responsability of the device driver writer (or who ever
uses it). AFAIK there is no defined behavior for this case. I vote for
removing the tasklet without it ever being run.
me
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 15 2001 - 21:00:25 EST