Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:50:34 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Michael Abbott <michael@araneidae.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS locking: lockf freezes (rpc.lockd problem?) Message-ID: <20060829075034.GA727@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20060828124935.G62656@saturn.araneidae.co.uk> References: <200608281220.k7SCKoJW054182@lurza.secnetix.de> <20060828124935.G62656@saturn.araneidae.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2006-Aug-28 13:23:30 +0000, Michael Abbott wrote: >I think there is a case to be made for special casing SIGKILL, but in a=20 >sense it's not so much the fate of the process receiving the SIGKILL that= =20 >counts: after all, having sent -9 I know that it will never process again. Currently, if you send SIGKILL, the process will never enter userland again. Going further, so that if you send a process SIGKILL, it will always terminate immediately is significantly more difficult. In the normal case, a process is sleeping on some condition with PCATCH specified. If the process receives a signal, sleep(9) will return ERESTART or EINTR and the code has to then arrange to return back to userland (which will cause the signal to be handled as per sigaction(2) and the processes signal handlers). In some cases, it may be inconvenient to unwind back to userland from a particular point so PCATCH isn't specified on the sleep. --=20 Peter Jeremy --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFE8/HK/opHv/APuIcRAhQEAKCWv2sentHLbSPJ9oW8AJ8Y6Y+HdACeIaAD /NHhnK8Bh+2/Jj1tfk5AJbw= =8D3p -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060829075034.GA727>