Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:29:44 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Runaway cron task on 2.5.63/4 bk? |
| |
george anzinger <george@mvista.com> wrote: > > Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, george anzinger wrote: > > > >>Lets consider this one on its own merits. What SHOULD sleep do when > >>asked to sleep for MAX_INT number of jiffies or more, i.e. when > >>jiffies overflows? My notion, above, it that it is clearly an error. > > > > > > My suggestion (in order of preference): > > - sleep the max amount, and then restart as if a signal had happened > > I think this will require a 64-bit expire in the timer_struct > (actually it would not be treated as such, but the struct would still > need the added bits). Is this ok? > > I will look at the problem in detail and see if there might be another > way without the need of the added bits.
Is it not possible to just sit in a loop, sleeping for 0x7fffffff jiffies on each iteration? (Until the final partial bit of course)
> Hm... I changed it to what it is to make it easier to track down > problems in the test code... and this was user code. My thinking was > that such large values are clear errors, and having the code "hang" in > the sleep just hides the problem. But then, I NEVER make a system > call without checking for errors.... And, I was making a LOT of sleep > calls and wanted to know which one(s) were wrong.
If an app wants to sleep forever, calling
while (1) sleep(MAX_INT);
seems like a reasonable approach. I'd expect quite a lot of applications would be doing that.
- 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/
|  |