lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [linux-usb-devel] init 1 kill khubd on 2.6.11
Nish Aravamudan <nish.aravamudan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > - /* Send me a signal to get me die (for debugging) */
> > do {
> > hub_events();
> > - wait_event_interruptible(khubd_wait, !list_empty(&hub_event_list));
> > + wait_event_interruptible(khubd_wait,
> > + !list_empty(&hub_event_list) ||
> > + kthread_should_stop());
> > try_to_freeze(PF_FREEZE);
> > - } while (!signal_pending(current));
> > + } while (!kthread_should_stop() || !list_empty(&hub_event_list));
>
> Shouldn't this simply be a wait_event(), instead of
> wait_event_interruptible()?

That would cause uninterruptible sleep, which contributes to load average.

> Then the do-while() can be gotten rid of,
> as the only reason it is there currently, I guess, is to ignore
> signals?

Nope, the do-while is a basic part of the daemon's operation: keep doing
stuff until either there's no stuff to do or until we're told to exit.

> Also, the while's conditional should be (!kthread_should_stop() ||
> list_empty(&hub_event_list) to match the negation of wait_event's?
> (wait_event() expects the condition to stop on, while while() expects
> the condition to continue on)

Nope, the wait_event_interruptible test says

"sleep unless the list is not empty or I am being asked to exit"

the while termination test says

"loop until the list is empty and I am being asked to stop".

I think. I had to scratch my head for a while over that code ;)
-
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: 2005-05-02 00:59    [W:0.063 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site