Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | RE: which signal is sent to freeze process? | Date | Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:18:26 -0700 | From | "Agarwal, Lomesh" <> |
| |
The net effect would be same. Why would you choose one over other (do_sys_poll vs. do_poll)? Can you point me to code where socket read returns in case of signal_pending? I need to try couple of things.
-----Original Message----- From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@sisk.pl] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 2:51 PM To: Agarwal, Lomesh Cc: nigel@suspend2.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: which signal is sent to freeze process?
On Monday, 23 July 2007 22:57, Agarwal, Lomesh wrote: > Why do you need try_to_freeze in below patch? Shouldn't > !freezing(current) checking is enough?
The try_to_freeze() is needed so that the process doesn't block the freezing of tasks (it is supposed to call refrigerator() as soon as reasonably possible when freezing(current) is true).
Alternatively, we might return 0 from do_sys_poll() if do_poll() has returned 0 and both signal_pending(current) and freezing(current) are true. Below is a patch that implements that. Could you please try it?
Greetings, Rafael
--- fs/select.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1/fs/select.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1.orig/fs/select.c +++ linux-2.6.22-rc6-mm1/fs/select.c @@ -722,7 +722,7 @@ int do_sys_poll(struct pollfd __user *uf walk = walk->next; } err = fdcount; - if (!fdcount && signal_pending(current)) + if (!fdcount && (signal_pending(current) && !freezing(current))) err = -EINTR; out_fds: walk = head; - 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/
| |