Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:04:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:04:43 -0500 Received: from pcep-jamie.cern.ch ([137.138.38.126]:62989 "EHLO pcep-jamie.cern.ch") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 21:04:24 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:32:40 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Petr Vandrovec , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.4.0-test13-pre1 lockup: run_task_queue or tty_io are wrong Message-ID: <20001219023240.A20275@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> In-Reply-To: <20001218215123.A19928@pcep-jamie.cern.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from torvalds@transmeta.com on Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 03:58:08PM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > > I wasn't clear. The sentinel is a local structure on the stack, and > > only exists while run_task_queue is executing. Another name for this is > > "deletion-safe pointer". > > Yes, except run_task_queue removes every object it finds. So two > concurrent run_task_queues would be bad. That could work, but forget it. I've just looked at Andrew's patch and it's much nicer :-) If you put a spinlock around the list operations in Andrew's version, you'd have safe tqueue deletions again (if you felt that was worth having). Some tricks and you can make it a different spinlock, but I doubt that would be a net benefit. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/