Russel,
Is this what you want ?
static inline void clcdfb_sleep(unsigned int ms)
{
- if (in_atomic()) {
mdelay(ms);
- } else {
- msleep(ms);
- }
}
Regards
Santosh
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:07:18PM +0530, santosh prasad nayak wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 08:49:27PM +0530, santosh prasad nayak wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> >> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > in_interrupt() won't tell us if we're being called with spinlocks held,
>> >> > which _is_ a possibility because this can be called from printk(), for
>> >> > oops dumps and the like.
>> >> >
>> >> > in_interrupt() just means that we're inside a hard or soft interrupt,
>> >> > or nmi. It says nothing about whether msleep() is possible.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> in_atomic() is also not error free. I found following comment in
>> >> include/linux/hardirq.h. How do you handle it in non-preemptible
>> >> kernel ?
>> >>
>> >> /*
>> >> * Are we running in atomic context? WARNING: this macro cannot
>> >> * always detect atomic context; in particular, it cannot know about
>> >> * held spinlocks in non-preemptible kernels. Thus it should not be
>> >> * used in the general case to determine whether sleeping is possible.
>> >> * Do not use in_atomic() in driver code.
>> >> */
>> >> #define in_atomic() ((preempt_count() & ~PREEMPT_ACTIVE) != 0)
>> >
>> > That may be, but the fact of the matter is that no one has *ever*
>> > reported an incident where this has failed at this point - and when
>> > it does people will end up with a might_sleep() warning from msleep().
>> >
>> > Maybe those who are saying people should not use this should instead
>> > be analysing why people use this, and suggest an alternative solution
>> > to the problem instead of a basic and uninformative "you shouldn't use
>> > this" statement.
>>
>> The reason is given in the article.
>
> At this point I'm just going to restate what I said above and below, so
> I'm not even going to bother doing that, and instead just say that. I'm
> not arguing whether it's right or wrong. I'm just stating that the only
> solution I see is to get rid of msleep() in there entirely.
>
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/274695/
>>
>> "The in_atomic() macro works by checking whether preemption is
>> disabled, which seems like the right thing to do. Handlers for events
>> like hardware interrupts will disable preemption, but so will the
>> acquisition of a spinlock. So this test appears to catch all of the
>> cases where sleeping would be a bad idea. Certainly a number of people
>> who have looked at this macro have come to that conclusion.
>>
>> But if preemption has not been configured into the kernel in the first
>> place, the kernel does not raise the "preemption count" when spinlocks
>> are acquired. So, in this situation (which is common - many
>> distributors still do not enable preemption in their kernels),
>> in_atomic() has no way to know if the calling code holds any spinlocks
>> or not. So it will return zero (indicating process context) even when
>> spinlocks are held. And that could lead to kernel code thinking that
>> it is running in process context (and acting accordingly) when, in
>> fact, it is not."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> regards
>> Santosh
>> >
>> > As I've said, if we aren't going to use this, then the only solution is
>> > to completely omit the msleep() there and just say "sod you to running
>> > anything else for 20ms while this driver busy-spins." That's
>> > ultimately the safe thing to do, and at the moment I see no other
>> > alternative there.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
