Re: "upping" a semaphore from interrupt context?

[Satyam Sharma]

On 6/23/07, Oliver Neukum <oliver@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Am Samstag, 23. Juni 2007 schrieb Satyam Sharma:
> > * 3. set up a timer and schedule another function to service the
> > * interrupt / do what needs to be done then, hopefully the mutex
> > * would be uncontended then => *gargh*
>
> You could use schedule_work(). However then why not use it always.
> This would make sense if what you want to do is outright trivial.

If you use schedule_work() to pass off work from interrupt context
to process context, then you wouldn't be calling down_trylock()
from interrupt context in the first place (which is what is being
discussed here). You would simply pass off the entire code that
uses the shared data (and wraps a *proper* down() or mutex_lock()
around it, not the _trylock() variant) to the workqueue.

Also, that is precisely my point too. What I'm saying is that it is
generally poor design to be wanting to use the _trylock() variant
of semaphore / mutex in interrupt context. Workqueues _are_ the
preferred mechanism to use for (most) such cases where you need
to do something that may require you to sleep.

Satyam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/