Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:57:42 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/preempt-locking.txt clarification
Message-Id: <20041110005742.35828d2b.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <1100074907.3654.780.camel@thanatos>
References: <1073302283.1903.85.camel@thanatos.hubertnet>
	<1074561880.26456.26.camel@localhost>
	<1100074907.3654.780.camel@thanatos>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1116
Lines: 31

Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I have tried to clarify the text while at the same time
>  preserving the original meaning.  Everything is pretty clear
>  now except for the last paragraph which I still find baffling.
>  I don't know what "a test to see if preemption is required" is
>  exactly and I don't understand when such a test is required.

I guess it's saying that if you do this:

	local_irq_disable();
	lah_de_dah();
	local_irq_enable();

then you should follow that by

	preempt_check_resched();

just in case someone told this task to preempt itself while it had
interrupts disabled.

But I don't see why that's needed: if the preempt command came from another
CPU then this CPU will take the cross-CPU interrupt as soon as interrupts
are enabled.  And the preempt command couldn't have come from _this_ CPU,
because it had interrupts disabled.

-
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/