Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 1 May 2005 15:55:35 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |