Re: [PATCH for 2.5] preemptible kernel

[Nigel Gamble]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, David S. Miller wrote:
> Basically, anything which uses smp_processor_id() would need to
> be holding some lock so as to not get pre-empted.

Not necessarily.  Another solution for the smp_processor_id() case is
to ensure that the task can only be scheduled on the current CPU for the
duration that the value of smp_processor_id() is used.  Or, if the
critical region is very short, to disable interrupts on the local CPU.

Nigel Gamble                                    [e-mail]
Mountain View, CA, USA.                         http://www.nrg.org/

MontaVista Software                             [e-mail]