[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111101175953.GB5358@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 18:59:53 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, trond.myklebust@...app.com,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] freezer: revert 27920651fe "PM / Freezer: Make
fake_signal_wake_up() wake TASK_KILLABLE tasks too"
On 11/01, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> diddling with
> sigmask in kernel generally isn't a good idea.
Agreed.
> If there are only a handful sites which need this type of behavior,
> wouldn't something like the following work?
>
> #define wait_event_freezekillable(wq, condition) \
> do { \
> DEFINE_WAIT(__wait); \
> for (;;) { \
> prepare_to_wait(&wq, &__wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); \
> if (condition || fatal_signal_pending(current)) \
> break; \
> schedule(); \
No, this can't work, afaics.
Once the caller recieves a non-fatal signal (gets TIF_SIGPENDING),
schedule() won't block in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state.
IOW, wait_event_freezekillable() becomes a busy-wait loop.
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