Re: kpreempt_disable and lwp migration

To: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
Subject: Re: kpreempt_disable and lwp migration
From: coypu%sdf.org@localhost
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 11:25:08 +0000

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 11:19:59AM +0200, Martin Husemann wrote:
> Isn't the idea of blocking with preemption enabled bogus?
> 
> So instead of disallowing migration with preemption disabled, KASSERT
> in all blocking primitives that preemption is enabled and fix the fallout
> at the call sites?

Is it now safe to use blocking functions under kpreempt_disable()? What
about the single processor case?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: kpreempt_disable and lwp migration
  - From: Martin Husemann

References:
- kpreempt_disable and lwp migration
  - From: coypu
- Re: kpreempt_disable and lwp migration
  - From: Martin Husemann

Prev by Date: Re: kpreempt_disable and lwp migration
Next by Date: Re: kpreempt_disable and lwp migration
Previous by Thread: Re: kpreempt_disable and lwp migration
Next by Thread: Re: kpreempt_disable and lwp migration
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index