From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:34:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:34:31 -0400 Received: from red.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.70]:53388 "EHLO red.csi.cam.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:34:26 -0400 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010409131813.00a68b80@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:34:30 +0100 To: Andi Kleen From: Anton Altaparmakov Subject: Re: Q: process concurrency and sigaction() Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20010409134550.A26660@gruyere.muc.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.2.20010409115354.00a311a0@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> <5.0.2.1.2.20010409115354.00a311a0@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andi, Thanks a lot for the explanations! All clear now. (-: [snip] At 12:45 09/04/01, Andi Kleen wrote: >It's ok, but you don't really need to spin. A flag is enough. Also you >could use the signal blocking function (sigprocmask), but they're slightly >more expensive than just setting a flag. Yes, good point. Saves me a whole variable in my data structs in fact, as I already have 32 bits worth of mostly unused, atomic flags. sigprocmask would be rather excessive considering it requires a full context switch into the kernel to execute and the high frequency of lock/unlocks in the normal code while the handler only executes once every 5 seconds... Best regards, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / WWW: http://sourceforge.net/projects/linux-ntfs/ ICQ: 8561279 / WWW: http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/