lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/5] x86: introduce preemption disable prefix
On 10/18, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> Oleg, the code in kernel/signal.c:
>
> preempt_disable();
> read_unlock(&tasklist_lock);
> preempt_enable_no_resched();
> freezable_schedule();
>
> looks bogus. I don't get what it's trying to achieve with
> preempt_disable(), and I also don't see why no_resched does anything.
> Sure, it prevents a reschedule triggered during read_unlock() from
> causing a reschedule,

Yes. Lets suppose we remove preempt_disable/enable.

Debugger was already woken up, if it runs on the same CPU quite possibly
it will preemt the tracee. After that debugger will spin in wait_task_inactive(),
until it is in turn preempted or calls schedule_timeout(1), so that the tracee
(current) can finally call __schedule(preempt = F) and call deactivate_task() to
become inactive.

> but it doesn't prevent an interrupt immediately
> after the preempt_enable_no_resched() call from scheduling.

Yes, but this is less likely.

Oleg.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-19 12:39    [W:0.134 / U:2.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site