Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 04:25:49AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Why does tasklet_trylock go away?
>
> because the logic is different, that's perfectly ok. In short when irq
> are enabled and the TASKLET_STATE_SCHED bit is set, then the tasklet is
> also queued. That's t
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 04:25:49AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > The only thing that appears fishy is that if the tasklet constantly
> > reschedules itself, it will never leave the loop AFAICS. This affects
> > tasklet_hi_action as well as tasklet_action.
>
> As I hacked aro
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 03:08:05AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ville Nummela wrote:
> > In kernel/softirq.c, line 178:
> >
> > if (test_bit(TASKLET_STATE_SCHED, &t->state))
> > tasklet_schedule(t);
> >
> > What's the idea behind this line? If the tasklet i
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > --- 2.4.6pre5/include/asm-alpha/softirq.h Thu Jun 21 08:03:51 2001
> > +++ softirq/include/asm-alpha/softirq.h Thu Jun 21 15:58:06 2001
> > @@ -8,21 +8,28 @@
> > extern inline void cpu_bh_disable(int cpu)
> > {
> > local_bh_count(cpu)++;
> > - mb();
> >
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> The only thing that appears fishy is that if the tasklet constantly
> reschedules itself, it will never leave the loop AFAICS. This affects
> tasklet_hi_action as well as tasklet_action.
As I hacked around to fix this, I noticed Andrea's ksoftirq patch
already fixed this. S
Ville Nummela wrote:
> In kernel/softirq.c, line 178:
>
> if (test_bit(TASKLET_STATE_SCHED, &t->state))
> tasklet_schedule(t);
>
> What's the idea behind this line? If the tasklet is already scheduled,
> schedule it again? This does not make much sense to
6 matches
Mail list logo
