Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 4 Feb 2006 20:10:42 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [ 00/10] [Suspend2] Modules support. |
| |
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 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/
| |