[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090525225150.GA12362@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 00:51:50 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
roland@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] signal: make group kill signal fatal
On 05/25, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> On 05/25/2009 07:20 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 05/25, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> If the poll isn't there, it works well.
> >
> > Hmm. this is strange. Do you mean that if this program does
> > sleep(10000) (or something else) instead of poll() above, it
> > prints pend != 0 ?
>
> No, only when there is nothing, i.e. when it directly calls close. It's
> consistent with what you wrote. When there is sleep(), it works the same
> as the poll case.
Good ;)
> > And. Why do you need fatal_signal_pending() ? It is special,
> > should be used by things like wait_event_killable().
>
> I need to wait for a device to finish its work in last release, but also
> want to allow user to kill the waiting by SIGKILL if he thinks the
> device locked up (this is pretty usual for that particular device). If I
> use wait_event_killable, I end up with this.
Heh. In this case you have another (long-standing) issue, please note
the "if (p->flags & PF_EXITING)" check in wants_signal().
There is no guarantee the signal will wake up the exiting task task.
Even SIGKILL, even if you use wait_event_interruptible() instead of
_killable.
Oleg.
--
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