| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 16:14:30 +0100 From: "Dmitry Adamushko" <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com> To: eli@...lanox.co.il Cc: "Linux Kernel" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: wait_for_completion_timeout problem ??? On 01/03/07, Eli Cohen <eli@...lanox.co.il> wrote: > >... > > wait_for_completion_timeout() should return something different that > > encodes the fact /event happened/ and not just /event happened _and_ a > > caller has got scheduled back earlier than timeout. > That possibility crossed my mind but I ruled it out since the the > timeout is 10 sec while completion arrived less then 4 msec after > calling wait_for_completion_timeout(). So it appears to me unlikely that > it will the task will be in the run list but will not get CPU time for > nearly 10 seconds. I will give it a try though. I will increase timeout > to 20 sec. > Mea culpa. Don't know why I took it as 10 ms.. Yep, in case of seconds it rather becomes a mere theoretical possibility. Are you sure there are no other "waiters" being blocked on the same "completion" at the same time? complete_all()? Anyway, do "cat /proc/your_task_pid/status" and look at the "State: " field. It should be "R" in case wake_up_*() was called for this task. -- Best regards, Dmitry Adamushko - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists