From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266148AbTLaHM1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:12:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266149AbTLaHM1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:12:27 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([69.30.125.51]:3969 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266148AbTLaHM0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:12:26 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:12:24 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri cc: Rusty Russell , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kthread_create In-Reply-To: <20031231120151.A22673@in.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 09:56:05PM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > Also, what happens in the task woke up by a send does not reschedule > > before another CPU does another send? Wouldn't a message be lost? > > > > The messages should not be lost because we take the cpucontrol > semaphore in kthread_start or kthread_destroy before sending > a (start or destroy) message. I see, ok. At that point though, having the message struct inside the task struct could save the *to pointer and (because of the big lock above), using barrier and proper order in setting *from and *info, the spin lock. OTOH the big lock above really make the global message structure private, so it does not make much difference. - Davide