Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:21:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:21:19 -0400 Received: from CPE-61-9-150-66.vic.bigpond.net.au ([61.9.150.66]:62218 "EHLO mozart") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 06:21:12 -0400 Message-Id: From: Rusty Russell To: "Paul McKenney" Cc: ak@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, lse-tech-admin@lists.sourceforge.net, nigel@nrg.org Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH for 2.5] preemptible kernel In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:54:52 MST." Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:21:43 +1000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message you write: > > Already preempted tasks. > > But if you are suppressing preemption in all read-side critical sections, > then wouldn't any already-preempted tasks be guaranteed to -not- be in > a read-side critical section, and therefore be guaranteed to be unaffected > by the update (in other words, wouldn't such tasks not need to be waited > for)? Ah, if you want to inc and dec all the time, yes. But even if the performance isn't hurt, it's unneccessary, and something else people have to remember to do. Simplicity is very nice. And in the case of module unload, gives us the ability to avoid the distinction between "am I calling into a module?" and "is this fixed in the kernel?" at runtime. A very good thing 8) Rusty. -- Premature optmztion is rt of all evl. --DK - 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/