> > I see your point here, but need to think about it. One question:
> > isn't it the case that the alternative to using synchronize_kernel()
> > is to protect the read side with explicit locks, which will themselves
> > suppress preemption? If so, why not just suppress preemption on the
read
> > side in preemptible kernels, and thus gain the simpler implementation
> > of synchronize_kernel()? You are not losing any preemption latency
> > compared to a kernel that uses traditional locks, in fact, you should
> > improve latency a bit since the lock operations are more expensive than
> > are simple increments and decrements. As usual, what am I missing
> > here? ;-)
>
> Already preempted tasks.
But if you are suppressing preemption in all read-side critical sections,
then wouldn't any already-preempted tasks be guaranteed to -not- be in
a read-side critical section, and therefore be guaranteed to be unaffected
by the update (in other words, wouldn't such tasks not need to be waited
for)?
> > Another approach would be to define a "really low" priority that noone
> > other than synchronize_kernel() was allowed to use. Then the UP
> > implementation of synchronize_kernel() could drop its priority to
> > this level, yield the CPU, and know that all preempted tasks must
> > have obtained and voluntarily yielded the CPU before synchronize_kernel
()
> > gets it back again.
>
> Or "never", because I'm running RC5 etc. 8(.
Ummmm... Good point! Never mind use of low priorities in UP kernels
for synchronize_kernel()...
Thanx, Paul
-
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 : Sat Apr 07 2001 - 21:00:20 EST