[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH -rt 2/2] RCU priority boosting additions to rcutorture
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 01:42:42PM +1100, Nigel Cunningham wrote:
> Hi Paul.
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:31 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Good to hear from you, Nigel!
> Thanks :)
> > Should indeed be OK to freeze during suspend/hibernate. Will my
> > schedule_timeout_interruptible() be sufficient to allow the freeze
> > to happen, or do I need to add an explicit try_to_freeze()?
> You need a try_to_freeze() - the process has to enter the refrigerator()
> function to be counted as frozen.

Even though it explicitly sleeps each time through the loop? Hmmm...

> > Ah, and I probably need to use the same trick that mtd_blktrans_thread()
> > does to avoid having all my sleeps killed of by an errant signal:
> >
> > spin_lock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
> > sigfillset(&current->blocked);
> > recalc_sigpending();
> > spin_unlock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
> >
> > Or is such paranoia unnecessary?
> Yeah. try_to_freeze() is a function now, so you can do something if
> (try_to_freeze()) goto sleep_again if you so desire.

If try_to_freeze() succeeds, do I need to clean up signal state?
It didn't look like it to me, but thought I should ask the expert!

My guess is that I can simply do:


The schedule_timeout_interruptible() might return early, but if I
don't care about getting a shorter than expected sleep, I am OK,
right? Besides, one would have to get a couple of very closely
spaced freeze_processes() calls for this to happen. ;-)

Thanx, Paul
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-01 16:15    [W:0.036 / U:3.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site