[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110406130928.GF4142@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 06:09:28 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] signals: Always place SIGCONT and SIGSTOP on
'shared_pending'
Hey, guys.
On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 02:57:57PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> But even SIGSTOP should be routed properly. If the process is ptraced,
> the tracee reports SIGSTOP to the debugger first. This means that
> tkill(SIGSTOP) should be delivered to the right target.
I think the more important part is that there really isn't much point
in optimizing SIGSTOP/CONT. They inherently involve heavy,
walk-every-thread operations of putting them to sleep and reversing it
and there isn't much point in optimizing sending SIGSTOP to stopped
processes or CONT to running ones. In addition, STOP/CONT interaction
is already scary enough so I'd like to avoid adding complexities there
if at all possible.
I think it would be better to concentrate on more usual signals.
Thank you.
--
tejun
--
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