lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: copy to user
Date
> If you put the process in (un)interruptible sleep in the kernel, won't this
> be enough? This is different than SIGSTOP. Is the requirement that this
> process not leave the kernel call, or that it is actually consuming CPU
> cycles as well?

The process needs to be using CPU time, however, there must be a chance to
the scheduler to change the current process... if this occurs, than the delay
has to be aborted.

>
> > About using udelay... this soluction seemed fine to me at first but if I
> > hang the CPU with udelay the scheduler will no be doing it's job (isn't
> > it?). This would give me even more intrusiveness (another requirement:
> > the less intrusiveness as possible).
>
> It would probably work OK on an SMP system, since tasks can still be run
> on the other CPU.
>
> Cheers, Andreas

--
Luís Henriques
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.069 / U:5.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site