lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Q: down_killable() is racy? or schedule() is not right?

    * Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com> wrote:

    > > This looks racy. If SIGKILL comes in the WINDOW above, the event is
    > > lost. The task will wait for up() or timeout with the fatal signal
    > > pending, and it is not possible to wakeup it via kill() again.
    > >
    > > This is easy to fix, but I wonder if we should change schedule()
    > > instead.
    >
    > [ for what it's worth ] I think, you are definitely right here.
    >
    > The schedule() would be the right place to fix it. At the very least,
    > because otherwise callers are obliged to always check for
    > fatal_signal_pending(task) before scheduling with state ==
    > TASK_KILLABLE. e.g. schedule_timeout_killable().
    >
    > Not very nice, IMHO.

    i guess we should fix this in schedule() - is there a patch i could try?

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-09 13:45    [W:0.048 / U:391.740 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site