[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.1.10.0806221113490.15126@fbirervta.pbzchgretzou.qr>
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:14:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
To: Eric Smith <eric@...uhaha.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: Any lightweight way for one thread to force another thread to
suspend execution?
On Sunday 2008-06-22 03:55, Eric Smith wrote:
>Andi wrote:
>> Any such mechanism will need a syscall, and it's unlikely that
>> any syscall will get much cheaper than a kill(SIGSTOP)
>
>But is there a way for the process sending the SIGSTOP to wait until it
>has taken effect? I need a method to *synchronously* stop another
>thread. That's why I thought I probably needed something more
>elaborate than SIGSTOP, though I'd like to minimize the number of
>system calls required.
When it is stopped, the process state changes to "T" (in ps and /proc).
Note that debugging a program with gdb or ptrace also puts it in the T state.
--
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