Hi...
>
> No, in the SMP case, lock_kernel() is of course not empty. Have a look
> at include/linux/smp_lock.h. It defines lock_kernel() as empty only if
> CONFIG_LOCK_KERNEL is false (otherwise one of the two non-empty
> implementations of lock_kernel() in lib/kernel_lock.c is used).
Thanks for
Le Thu, 27 Dec 2007 09:00:39 +0700,
"Mulyadi Santosa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> What if the user selected CONFIG_SMP and at the same time choose
> voluntary preemption model? does lock_kernel() still expand as void
> function? I guess in SMP we still have to deal with concurrent
> acquisitio
Hi Thomas..
> As explained in the kernel configuration help text for this option,
> voluntary preemption consists in adding explicit preemption points in
> the kernel. No kernel code will be preempted if it doesn't explicity
> calls might_sleep() (see http://lwn.net/Articles/93604/). So, it's up
>
Le Wed, 26 Dec 2007 11:11:02 +0300,
"Dave Milter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> I wonder, why if I choose PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY "lock_kernel" become
> something like do { } while (0),
> there is no need serialization in this mode?
As explained in the kernel configuration help text for this option,
I wonder, why if I choose PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY "lock_kernel" become
something like do { } while (0),
there is no need serialization in this mode?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
"unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
