Documentation: preempt-locking: Use better example
The existing wording implies that the use of spin_unlock whilst irqs are
disabled might trigger a reschedule. However the preemptible() test in
preempt_schedule will prevent a reschedule if irqs are disabled.
Lets improve the clarity of this wording to change the example from
spin_unlock to cond_resched() and cond_resched_lock() as these are
functions that will trigger a reschedule if the preempt count is 0 without
testing that irqs are disabled.
Also remove the 'Last Updated' line as this is not up to date and better
tracked via GIT.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Murray <andrew.murray@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
diff --git a/Documentation/preempt-locking.txt b/Documentation/preempt-locking.txt
index c945062..509f5a4 100644
--- a/Documentation/preempt-locking.txt
+++ b/Documentation/preempt-locking.txt
@@ -3,7 +3,6 @@
===========================================================================
:Author: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
-:Last Updated: 28 Aug 2002
Introduction
@@ -92,11 +91,12 @@
in those cases.
But keep in mind that 'irqs disabled' is a fundamentally unsafe way of
-disabling preemption - any spin_unlock() decreasing the preemption count
-to 0 might trigger a reschedule. A simple printk() might trigger a reschedule.
-So use this implicit preemption-disabling property only if you know that the
-affected codepath does not do any of this. Best policy is to use this only for
-small, atomic code that you wrote and which calls no complex functions.
+disabling preemption - any cond_resched() or cond_resched_lock() might trigger
+a reschedule if the preempt count is 0. A simple printk() might trigger a
+reschedule. So use this implicit preemption-disabling property only if you
+know that the affected codepath does not do any of this. Best policy is to use
+this only for small, atomic code that you wrote and which calls no complex
+functions.
Example::
