lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support.
    Hi!

    > > > 3) trying to treat uninterruptible tasks as non-freezeable should better
    > > > be avoided (I tried to implement this in swsusp last year but it caused
    > > > vigorous opposition to appear, and it was not Pavel ;-))
    > >
    > > I'm not suggesting treating them as unfreezeable in the fullest sense. I
    > > still signal them, but don't mind if they don't respond. This way, if they
    > > do leave that state for some reason (timeout?) at some point, they still
    > > get frozen.
    >
    > Yes, that's exactly what I wanted to do in swsusp. ;-)

    It seems dangerous to me. Imagine you treated interruptible tasks like
    that...

    What prevent task from doing

    set_state(UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
    schedule(one hour);
    write_to_filesystem();
    handle_signal()?

    I.e. it may do something dangerous just before being catched by
    refrigerator.
    Pavel
    --
    Thanks, Sharp!
    -
    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: 2006-02-04 20:14    [W:0.022 / U:88.260 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site