Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:48:52 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] slow_work_thread() should do the exclusive wait |
| |
On 04/13, David Howells wrote: > > Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> wrote: > > > Should that really be TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE? I don't see anything obvious > > in the enclosing for(;;) loop that checks for or handles signals... > > If it were TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE, it would sit there in the D-state when not > doing anything. I must admit, I thought I was calling daemonize(), but that > seems to have got lost somewhere.
daemonize() is not needed, kthread_create() creates the kernel thread which ignores all signals. So it doesn't matter which state we use to sleep, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE or TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.
Oleg.
| |