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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
