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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans