On 06/13, john stultz wrote:
>
> The tsk->signal check from the patch above looks like it would avoid
> this as well. Is there a specific benefit to checking that over
> exit_state?
->exit_state is protected by tasklist_lock, and it would be nice to
avoid it in run_posix_cpu_timers(). (I guess we could remove it right
now, but I forgot the code). Yes, currently it doesn't matter because
tsk == current.
Personally I dislike the testing of ->exit_state != 0 because unlike
PF_EXITING or ->sighand/->signal it is changed from 0 to 1 in the middle
of do_exit() path. Imho it should be used only by do_exit/do_wait path,
but maybe this is just me.
Btw, I think there is another problem,
check_process_timers:
t = tsk;
do {
...
do {
t = next_thread(t);
} while (unlikely(t->flags & PF_EXITING));
} while (t != tsk);
This can hang if the local timer interrupt happens right after do_exit()
sets PF_EXITING ?
Oleg.
-
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]
