On Jul 3, 2012 7:55 PM, "Parmenides" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > It is said that kernel can not be preempted in interrupt context > and when it is in a critical section protected by a spin lock. > > 1. For the spinlock case, it is easy to get if preemption is allowed > in critical section, the purpose of protection provided by spinlock > can not be achieved readily. > I don't know about Linux kernel. But the very prime purpose of a spin lock is to synchronize in the presence of pre-emption. Are u talking about implementing spin lock in the absence of an atomic hardware instruction?
> 2. For the interrupt context case, I think when processing interrupt, > kernel can be preempted in principle. But, this really increases the > interrupt processing time which further cause longer response time and > data missing in device. Except that, is there any other reasons? > > 3. Kernel is responsible for prohibiiting passive process switches, > namely preemption, in the above cases. But, It seems that it does not > take care of active process swtiches, namely yield. For example, some > code in a critical section protected by a spinlock can invoke > schedule() to switch process passively. Is this the case? > > _______________________________________________ > Kernelnewbies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
