On Friday 21 March 2008 02:31:44 Alan Stern wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 21:36:04 -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:
> > 
> > > Well, so far so good for LEDs, but what about the other users of in_atomic
> > > that apparently should not be doing it either?
> > 
> > Ho hum.  Lots of cc's added.
> 
> ...
> 
> > The usual pattern for most of the above is
> > 
> > 	if (!in_atomic())
> > 		do_something_which_might_sleep();
> > 
> > problem is, in_atomic() returns false inside spinlock on non-preptible
> > kernels.  So if anyone calls those functions inside spinlock they will
> > incorrectly schedule and another task can then come in and try take the
> > already-held lock.
> > 
> > Now, it happens that in_atomic() returns true on non-preemtible kernels
> > when running in interrupt or softirq context.  But if the above code really
> > is using in_atomic() to detect am-i-called-from-interrupt and NOT
> > am-i-called-from-inside-spinlock, they should be using in_irq(),
> > in_softirq() or in_interrupt().
> 
> Presumably most of these places are actually trying to detect 
> am-i-allowed-to-sleep.  Isn't that what in_atomic() is supposed to do?  

No, I think there is no such check in the kernel. Most likely for performance
reasons, as it would require a global flag that is set on each spinlock.
You simply must always _know_, if you are allowed to sleep or not. This is
done by defining an API. The call-context is part of any kernel API.

-- 
Greetings Michael.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/