* [pm] Better method of getting rid of signals
@ 2003-10-10 10:14 Pavel Machek
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Pavel Machek @ 2003-10-10 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel list, Patrick Mochel
Hi!
recalc_sigpending() seems like better idea, since it does not have
potential to kill some signal. Now with proper locking. Please apply,
Pavel
--- tmp/linux/kernel/power/process.c 2003-08-27 12:00:53.000000000 +0200
+++ linux/kernel/power/process.c 2003-10-09 11:21:14.000000000 +0200
@@ -49,10 +49,11 @@
pr_debug("%s entered refrigerator\n", current->comm);
printk("=");
current->flags &= ~PF_FREEZE;
- if (flag)
- flush_signals(current); /* We have signaled a kernel thread, which isn't normal behaviour
- and that may lead to 100%CPU sucking because those threads
- just don't manage signals. */
+
+ spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
+ recalc_sigpending(); /* We sent fake signal, clean it up */
+ spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
+
current->flags |= PF_FROZEN;
while (current->flags & PF_FROZEN)
schedule();
--
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2003-10-10 10:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-10-10 10:14 [pm] Better method of getting rid of signals Pavel Machek
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®