Hello Mulyadi!
Mulyadi Santosa wrote:
Anyway, sched_yield() doesn't really work like it used to be in 2.4 or
old O(1) in 2.6.
Oh, I didn't know this fact... :-/
But on the other hand I use 2.6.22 and the new CFScheduler we've since
v2.6.23...
Why I use yield():
I've just read Robert Love's
Hello Mulyadi!
Mulyadi Santosa wrote:
So, I have these questions:
1. Why does the yield() call in my kernel thread not force the proceeding of
the softirqs?
AFAIK , jiffies is updated as a part of bottom halves too (softirqd
IIRC). Thus, further suspicion should be directed to what's your
Hello together!
I'm developing an eth-interface module and I've the following issue...
In my module I create a kernel thread with the thread handler
'rx_thread_action' (please see below).
(It polls a message queue which is provided by the driver of a SCI card
but that's unimportant.)
static
Hello again!
Lukas Razik wrote:
In my module I create a kernel thread with the thread handler
'rx_thread_action' (please see below).
(It polls a message queue which is provided by the driver of a SCI card
but that's unimportant.)
static inline void
rx_action(struct net_device *dev, u8 *data
Hello Hannes!
Could the system instability appear (for example), because the
events thread which runs on the same CPU like my kernel thread,
doesn't process the works which are in its work queue? Or are all
works of the default queue delivered to other events threads on
the free CPUs?
I am
Hello Mulyadi!
first of all, what do you poll there? some register status? could the
device just yield an interrupt?
I poll a message queue. The Dolphin SCI network card's kernel modules
have a message queue implementation and I call their receive function:
Hello Johannes!
You don't give the scheduler a chance to run. If you sleep, the
scheduler will run and be able to deliver the signal and this is why it
works then.
Spinning like this is bad. That should actually freeze a UP machine if
I do not miss something.
The driver is _only_ for
Hello!
I develop a network interface driver and I've the following issue...
I create a kernel thread which has the following thread handler:
static int com_thread( void *data )
{
daemonize( comthread );
allow_signal( SIGTERM );
while( !signal_pending(current) ) {
if(receive(...)) {
Hello Peter!
Sorry, I missed the question onf the CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS - I think
that config option is meant for tracing the IRQ flow in the event of
debugging. Correct?
O.K. So it's only a help for debugging...
I use semaphores now (down() and up()). And the interface doesn't seem
to
Hello Peter!
2 diff things. semap are sync mechanism used - to sync among
CPUs/processes/tasks etc. Just a counting mechanism. It DOES NOT
lock the other CPU while another CPU is using the same resources.but
this counting must be atomicdifferent arch has different instruction
Hello again!
mutex does not lock in the sense of blocking the CPU - but in the
sense that if the lock is not free, the task will be switch out and
another task switch in, done by scheduler.
O.K. I understand so I ask in another way:
For example my work handler is running on CPU0 and holds
Hello!
My first idea was to use spin_lock_irqsave in the work handler:
...
spin_lock_irqsave(tx_d-lock, flags);
sock_sendmsg(...);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(tx_d-lock, flags);
...
but if I do that, I get this message from the kernel:
BUG: warning at kernel/softirq.c:137/local_bh_enable()
Hello all!
As you know, some network cards doesn't have a 'eth' interface under linux.
Because of that I'm developing a net_device based driver which doesn't
transmit and receive directly through a real network card but through
UDP kernel sockets.
That means:
If my net_device-hard_start_xmit
13 matches
Mail list logo
