Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:59:17 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: bright@mu.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Contemplating THIS change to signals. (fwd) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071757250.37321-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20020307195241.M64788-100000@mail.chesapeake.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Jeff Roberson wrote: > > > On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > > * Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> [020307 16:25] wrote: > > > * Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> [020307 14:00] wrote: > > > > > > You are correct, you can _not_ allow arbitrary kernel threads to > > > block indefinetly while potentially holding higher level locks. > > > > > > Please proceed with your planned work, it seems like the right > > > thing to do. > > > > Both Poul-Henning Kamp and Nate Williams bring up the important > > point of potentially long running syscalls, there are two > > ways you might consider fixing this: > > > > 1) add an additional flag to msleep to allow suspension during sleep. > > 2) restart the syscall at the userland boundry. > > > > Wouldn't it be reasonable to ignore the stop until we return to the user? > This way we could continue to honor all other signals inside msleep, which > seems to be very desirable. We should just postpone the STOP until we > actually return to the user. That's basically what I want to do. set a flag saying "We've been stopped" and leave. When we get to teh user boundary we stop if it's set. not too hard really. > > Am I missing something? I don't thinksoi, but that's why I'm asking.. Im also hoping to hear from kirk since we inherritted this behaviour from 4.4lite2 > > Jeff > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0203071757250.37321-100000>