How can a kernel be non preemptive and still have multiple control paths

In an operating systems course I took a while ago we were working on an old, non-preemptive kernel of Linux (2.4.X). However, we were told that there could be multiple control paths in the kernel simultaneously. Doesn't th开发者_如何学JAVAat contradict the non-preemptive nature of the kernel? EDIT: I mean, there is no context switch inside the kernel. Last time I tried asking this question I got the response "well, the Linux kernel is preemptive, so there's no problem".

Within the 2.4 kernel, although kernel code could not be arbitrarily pre-empted by other kernel code, kernel code could still voluntarily give up the CPU by sleeping (this is obviously quite a common case).

In addition, kernel code could always be pre-empted by interrupt handlers (unless it specifically disabled interrupts), and the 2.4 kernel also supported SMP, allowing multiple CPUs to be executing within the kernel simultaneously.

The Linux kernel can run in interrupt context or in process (user) context. Process context means it is running on behalf of a process, which has called a syscall. Interrupt context means it is running on behalf of some kind of interrupt (hardware interrupt, softirq, ...).

When you talk about preemptive multitasking, it means the kernel can decide to preempt some task to run another task. When you talk about preemptive kernels, it means the kernel can decide to preempt itself running to run some other kernel code.

Now, before Linux was a preemptive kernel, you could run kernel code on several CPUs, and kernel code could be interrupted by hardware interrupts (which could end up running softirqs before returning,...). Preemptive kernels mean the kernel can also be preemptied by process context kernel code, to avoid long latencies (preemptive Linux came from the Linux realtime tree).

Of course, all of this is better explained in Rusty Russell's Unreliable Guide to Kernel Hacking and Unreliable Guide to Kernel Locking.

EDIT:

Or, trying to explain it better, when a task calls a syscall on a non-preemptive kernel, that task cannot be preemptied until the syscall ends (maybe with EINTR, but this could be a long time). A preemptive kernel allows that task to be preemptied, leading to lower average-case and worst-case latencies for other tasks waiting to run.

A non-preemptive kernel means that the kernel does not perform context switching on behalf of another process, or interrupt another running process. It can still be multi-processing by implementing cooperative multitasking where the actually running processes themselves yield control to the kernel or other processes. So yes, you can have multi-tasking and a non-preemptive kernel.

There is no context switching within the kernel for MONOLITHIC kernels, but of course there is still multitasking performed by the kernel....therefore you still have multi-tasking and non-premptiveness

The Linux kernel offloads a lot of work to kernel threads, which may be scheduled in and out alongside userspace tasks, independent of kernel preemption. Even your old 2.4 kernel has these kernel threads, albeit less of them than a modern 2.6 kernel. The 2.6 kernel now has several levels of preemption that can be chosen at compile time, but full preemption is not the default.